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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: a book on the LP

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... It is an interesting question, and encouraging to see Goulder s critique taken seriously. One or two thoughts: (1) Of course Goulder s major point is the
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 10, 1999
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On 6 Dec 99, at 19:32, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

      > > Incidentally, I'm finding myself more and more inclined to the position,
      > > noted some time ago by E.F. Scott, that none of the "Matthean" bits in
      > > the LP are secondary. That is to say, I'm entertaining the idea that
      > > what has traditionally been taken to be Matthean additions to the prayer
      > > are not additions at all but represent the Q (or earliest Greek) form of
      > > the prayer. This has been percolating ever since I skimmed through
      > > Goulder's latest article in JBL on self contradiction in the IQP. If
      > > Matthew, certainly more than Luke, comes out of the same environment in
      > > which Q was produced, why should we not regard the language of Matthean
      > > Q sayings and material as more faithful to Q than, as is usually done,
      > > that of their Lukan counterparts? I suppose this is something I'm going
      > > to have to raise on Synoptic-L.

      It is an interesting question, and encouraging to see Goulder's critique
      taken seriously. One or two thoughts:

      (1) Of course Goulder's major point is the methodological problem of
      reconstructing Q based on the assumption that its language is non-
      Matthean, particularly given the clear cases of Matthean characteristic
      phraseology in verbatim double tradition. For him, this is a sign of just
      how self-contradictory the enterprise of reconstructing Q is, not least
      because of that standard argument from alternating primitivity:
      ultimately this sheds doubt on the existence of Q.

      (2) The question, however, that Jeffrey seems to be asking here is
      whether Goulder's critique might be valuable not so much in casting
      doubt on Q as in casting doubt on the way in which it tends to be
      reconstructed. This is an interesting question but I think that it re-
      focuses Goulder's central concern all the more: if we admit that Q's
      style was largely Matthean, we need to notice that the argument from
      alternating primitivity is beginning to be eroded, hence one of the
      standard grounds for believing that Q existed at all is undermined.

      (3) What, though, of the undeniably Matthean elements in phraseology
      of the Lord's Prayer? Goulder feels that they are signs of Matthean
      composition of the prayer out of the hints in Mark. My own feeling is
      that Matthew has probably composed the Lord's prayer in interaction
      with oral tradition. Goulder's theory does not adequately account for
      the oddity of EPIOUSION, for example: indeed he struggles to find a
      source in Mark for that whole petition (in the original JTS piece even
      attributing this to oral tradition before he had worked out the full
      "midrashic" theory).

      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
      All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
      Mark Without Q
      Aseneth Home Page
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.