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

Fw: [Synoptic-L] Goulder Symposium II

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    I have had the recent pleasure to receive comments from John Kloppenborg on my summary of his paper. Graciously, he has given his permission for me to share
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 7, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      I have had the recent pleasure to receive comments from John
      Kloppenborg on my summary of his paper. Graciously, he has
      given his permission for me to share them with the list.

      Stephen Carlson

      >I think that you have given a rather fair summary of the paper. There's only
      >one or two points where perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear.
      >> Based on my reading of Popper, Kuhn, and Chalmers who explains
      >> them very well, it is clear that the biggest problem with Popper's
      >> notion of falsibility is that there is no guidance on which
      >> premise to discard once a contradiction is found. Goulder would
      >> have us junk Q on the basis of the MAs, but Kloppenborg would
      >> prefer to set aside the notion that our critical texts of the
      >> gospel (only a reconstruction) are necessarily correct as to
      >> the actual text of Mark that Matthew and Luke used. And, in
      >> fact, that is basically Kloppenborg's response to the issue of
      >> the MAs. Yes, they do constitute anomalies for the 2DH, but
      >> given what we know of textual transmission in the ancient world,
      >> surely there must be some differences between the text that Mark
      >> composed, that Matthew used, that Luke used, and that has been
      >> transmitted down to us. In fact, Kloppenborg states that the
      >> only real difficulty the 2DH has due to the MAs is too many
      >> explanations.
      >I do not necessarily wed myself to the notion of multiple recensions, or the
      >interference or oral tradition, or textual corruption. Surely, it would
      >differ from MA to MA, which adjustment would be preferable. My general point
      >was that any one of these (singly or in combination) is able to accommodate
      >the MAs in a reasonably satisfactory way. I'm not very happy with the
      >textual corruption solution of Neirynck on Mark 14:65, but it is quite
      >possible. At other points, it might work more convincingly.
      >> While Kloppenborg feels that there are reasonable explanations
      >> for the MAs in the 2DH, he does not feel that the Farrer has a
      >> reasonable explanation for Luke's detachment of the non-Markan
      >> material in Matthew from the Matthean contexts and Luke's nearly
      >> entire lack of support for Matthew's changes to Mark.
      >My point was rather more general: I merely said that the issue of Luke's
      >deployment of the double tradition, and accounting for Luke's nearly
      >consistent choice for Mark against MAtthew when he has both as *problems*
      >(i.e., puzzles in the Kuhnian sense) that need a more thorough accounting
      >than G. has done. Derrenbacker's paper on Sunday raised this problem in a
      >different way.
      >> Goulder also related a discussion with a leading female text critic
      >> he won't name (as if it is none other than Barbara Aland), who
      >> characterized as "disreputable" any theory that required every text
      >> of Matthew to be corrupt. Naturally, she was surprised that the
      >> theory Goulder had in mind was the Q hypothesis with Streeter's,
      >> Tuckett's, and Nierynck's resolution for the well known passion
      >> narrative MA.
      >It reminds me of a remark by A.E. Houseman, reviewing (I think) an edition
      >of Catullus, where Housemann said that 'the best that can be said of the
      >editors few conjectural emendations is that they are few'.
      >G.'s point is rather overstated: conjectural emendations (which is what
      >Neirynck is really doing) is employed (sparingly) by text critics, in the
      >BHT and in other classical texts.
      >> Finally, Goulder said that the problem of Mattheanisms (which he
      >> said took more than 25 years to properly develop) is a much more
      >> serious threat to Q than the MAs and was disappointed that Kloppenborg
      >> did not address that argument. He cited his recent "Self-Contradiction
      >> in the IQP" article.
      >The third (unread) part of my paper dealt with the Matthaeanisms question,
      >but given the audience (mainly laypersons, as I took it), and the time
      >constraints, I decided not to read it. Michael, of course, has a full copy,
      >and Derrenbacker and I will respond to Michael's JBL piece in the next
      >I'm gratified that your reading of Popper and Kuhn seems to accord with
      >With all good wishes,
      >john kloppenborg

      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.