Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] middle-term

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... [The rest omitted]. Many thanks for this thoughtful post. Of course for an Augustinian Hypothesis, Luke is in the same position as he is in for the
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 13, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      On 9 Sep 99, at 8:29, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

      > I must admit that I've always been puzzled by Sanders and others
      > who argue that it does not make sense that the middle term could
      > be second. Let's use the AH as an example. Mark uses Matthew,
      > either copying Matthew (and creating Matt-Mark agreements) or
      > modifying Matthew (and creating Matt-Mark disagreements). [NB:
      > this result also occurs under the FH if Matt uses Mark.] When
      > Luke uses Mark for the narrative framework, he will either copy
      > Mark or modify Mark, for four possibilities:

      [The rest omitted]. Many thanks for this thoughtful post. Of course
      for an Augustinian Hypothesis, Luke is in the same position as he is in
      for the Farrer Theory, viz. he has Matthew and Mark in front of him.
      Perhaps this is the reason that competent scholars have confused the
      Farrer Theory with Augustine (most spectacularly Craig Blomberg
      and recently David Dungan).

      However, it seems to me that the key thing is in this sentence "When
      Luke uses Mark for the narrative framework". In other words, Mark-
      as-middle-term seems explicable on the Augustinian Hypothesis only
      on the assumption that Luke is giving Mark priority. Of course this is
      possible on an Augustinian Hypothesis (e.g. Deardorff explains it on
      the assumption that Luke prefers Mark's pro-gentile stance), but it is
      not the first thing that comes to mind. The Farrer Theory is here more
      natural in that Luke gives Mark priority (preference) because he
      knows of Mark's priority (temporal priority).

      I suspect that this is behind Sanders's contention that the Augustinian
      theory does not make good sense of Mark as middle-term. It's the
      way that I think of it at least. But I accept what you say. Might one
      summarise it as follows?: in order to make sense of the fact that Mark
      is often the middle term, the Augustinian theory needs to assume that
      Luke tends to give priority to Mark over Matthew, in spite of the
      proposition that Matthew predated Mark.

      > Interestingly, Butler thought that Griesbach was excluded as an
      > explanation for the middle term, but withdrew this criticism in
      > light of Farmer's work. I suspect that Butler was onto something
      > but could not articulate it. To me, it seems that Griesbach should
      > produce a slightly different prediction than the other middle term
      > explanations.

      I would be most interested if you could try to articulate this. Some of
      the best Synoptic work begins with a "hunch" that is later fleshed out
      with clear argument and data.

      Mark
      --------------------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
      Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      The New Testament Gateway
      Mark Without Q
      Aseneth Home Page
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... I am not sure about the FH in general, nor do I want to set myself up as a lineally accredited spokesperson for it. However, the explanation that I tend
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 13, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        On 9 Sep 99, at 12:30, Jim Deardorff wrote:

        > Does the FH have an explanation based on authorial motivation as to why
        > the Mt-Lk agreements against Mark are relatively few? If the FH were to
        > use the above explanation, it seems somewhat less plausible that an
        > anti-gentile gospel would have been written after a pro-gentile gospel had
        > appeared. It would require even greater audacity, I should think, on the
        > part of the writer of a second gospel to have expressed such strong
        > anti-gentile feelings than for the writer of a first gospel.

        I am not sure about "the FH" in general, nor do I want to set myself
        up as a lineally accredited spokesperson for it. However, the
        explanation that I tend to give is that Luke has known Mark for
        longer, say 20 years, and he knows it very well. He has known
        Matthew for less long, say 5-10 years, and when he saw it / heard it,
        it was the direct catalyst for the writing of his Gospel. He notices that
        what Matthew has done is to attempt to fix Mark, fleshing it out with
        Birth & Infancy Narratives + Resurrection story, adding lots of
        sayings material in between. But he doesn't like everything in Mathew
        and thinks: gosh: I can do the same thing; I can fix Mark too, and
        what's more I can improve on it by quarrying some of this new
        Matthean material. Yes, why don't I start researching this whole thing
        carefully from the beginning, and improve on my predecessors'
        narratives? I'll get mine in the right order too so that my readers can
        know the certainty of things in which they've been instructed.

        Mark
        --------------------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
        Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
        The New Testament Gateway
        Mark Without Q
        Aseneth Home Page
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... Sorry, I got carried away here by imagining that I was Luke (something that my Oxford tutor Eric Franklin, another Farrerite, taught me to do) and forgot
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 13, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          On 13 Sep 99, at 17:44, Mark Goodacre wrote:

          > I am not sure about "the FH" in general, nor do I want to set myself up as
          > a lineally accredited spokesperson for it. However, the explanation that
          > I tend to give is that Luke has known Mark for longer, say 20 years, and
          > he knows it very well. He has known Matthew for less long, say 5-10
          > years, and when he saw it / heard it, it was the direct catalyst for the
          > writing of his Gospel. He notices that what Matthew has done is to
          > attempt to fix Mark, fleshing it out with Birth & Infancy Narratives +
          > Resurrection story, adding lots of sayings material in between. But he
          > doesn't like everything in Mathew and thinks: gosh: I can do the same
          > thing; I can fix Mark too, and what's more I can improve on it by
          > quarrying some of this new Matthean material. Yes, why don't I start
          > researching this whole thing carefully from the beginning, and improve on
          > my predecessors' narratives? I'll get mine in the right order too so that
          > my readers can know the certainty of things in which they've been
          > instructed.

          Sorry, I got carried away here by imagining that I was Luke
          (something that my Oxford tutor Eric Franklin, another Farrerite,
          taught me to do) and forgot to finish by noting that Luke has known
          Mark for longer and therefore naturally prefers its wording and order,
          constructing his Gospel on the basis of Mark's narrative structure. He
          just knows Mark very well. Matthew is the new kid on the block
          and, further, Luke does not altogether like what Matthew has done
          with Mark -- the narrative flow is severely compromised by the great
          wooden edifices.

          Mark
          --------------------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
          Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          The New Testament Gateway
          Mark Without Q
          Aseneth Home Page
        • Jim Deardorff
          ... The slight dislike for Matthew by ALk you postulate here is at least an order of magnitude less in degree than what is to have been expected from a
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 13, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            At 05:44 PM 9/13/99 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
            >On 9 Sep 99, at 12:30, Jim Deardorff wrote:
            >
            >> Does the FH have an explanation based on authorial motivation as to why
            >> the Mt-Lk agreements against Mark are relatively few? If the FH were to
            >> use the above explanation, it seems somewhat less plausible that an
            >> anti-gentile gospel would have been written after a pro-gentile gospel had
            >> appeared. It would require even greater audacity, I should think, on the
            >> part of the writer of a second gospel to have expressed such strong
            >> anti-gentile feelings than for the writer of a first gospel.

            >I am not sure about "the FH" in general, nor do I want to set myself
            >up as a lineally accredited spokesperson for it. However, the
            >explanation that I tend to give is that Luke has known Mark for
            >longer, say 20 years, and he knows it very well. He has known
            >Matthew for less long, say 5-10 years, and when he saw it / heard it,
            >it was the direct catalyst for the writing of his Gospel. He notices that
            >what Matthew has done is to attempt to fix Mark, fleshing it out with
            >Birth & Infancy Narratives + Resurrection story, adding lots of
            >sayings material in between. But he doesn't like everything in Mathew
            >and thinks: gosh: I can do the same thing; I can fix Mark too, and
            >what's more I can improve on it by quarrying some of this new
            >Matthean material. Yes, why don't I start researching this whole thing
            >carefully from the beginning, and improve on my predecessors'
            >narratives? I'll get mine in the right order too so that my readers can
            >know the certainty of things in which they've been instructed.

            Added later:
            >... Luke has known
            >Mark for longer and therefore naturally prefers its wording and order,
            >constructing his Gospel on the basis of Mark's narrative structure. He
            >just knows Mark very well. Matthew is the new kid on the block
            >and, further, Luke does not altogether like what Matthew has done
            >with Mark -- the narrative flow is severely compromised by the great
            >wooden edifices.

            The slight dislike for Matthew by ALk you postulate here is at least an
            order of magnitude less in degree than what is to have been expected from a
            synoptist with a universal outlook. It could not have been any ho-hum matter
            within churches that catered to gentiles, by late 1st- or early 2nd-century,
            for a gospel to come out that advised no evangelizing to the gentiles and
            discipleship only for the lost sheep of Israel. It didn't help matters any
            that this gospel had been written in a Hebrew tongue, not Greek. So this
            explains ALk's distaste for Matthew as well as preference for Mark, written
            in Greek. ALk would not have been concerned with a "severly compromised"
            narrative flow in Matthew in comparison with his concern that gentiles be
            allowed, in writing, to be in on the action. Does this not seem obvious?

            This consideration takes precedence over which gospel came first and which
            second. If ALk cared that much for the status of the first gospel appearing
            on the scene, automatically preferring its wording and order, would he, if
            it had been Mark, have wished to interrupt Mark's narrative of the beginning
            of Jesus' ministry with a genealogy, have made the "great omission," have
            extracted the anointing of Jesus by the woman and placed it in an earlier
            context thereby detracting from the passion narrative, have violated Mark's
            order in his placement of the lawyer's question, etc.? Instead, with Mark
            second, its exclusion of many matters of interest to Christians of Jewish
            background, plus the need to purge its anti-Jewish slurs and remarks,
            provided the incentive for Luke to be written.

            Further, if Mark had been the only gospel for 20 years, or even for only 10,
            we should expect that a well known tradition would have evolved that made
            mention of this. Instead, the tradition is of Matthew in the Hebrew tongue
            occurring before Mark.

            Jim Deardorff
            Corvallis, Oregon
            E-mail: deardorj@...
            Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.