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

[Synoptic-L] Fallacies at the Heart of Q

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    I ve outlined what I see as Five Fallacies at the Heart of Q on a new page on my Mark Without Q site. This is a summary / introductory-level version of a
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 4, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      I've outlined what I see as "Five Fallacies at the Heart of Q" on a
      new page on my "Mark Without Q" site. This is a summary /
      introductory-level version of a paper I have prepared for the
      Synoptics Section at this year's SBL. I'd be grateful, of course, for
      comments or criticisms, either on-list or off.

      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fallacy.htm

      Mark
      ---------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology
      University of Birmingham Fax.: +44 (0)121 414 6866
      Birmingham B15 2TT Tel.: +44 (0)121 414 7512

      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      Homepage
      http://www.ntgateway.com
      The New Testament Gateway
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 7/4/2000 4:27:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk writes:
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 5, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 7/4/2000 4:27:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

        << I've outlined what I see as "Five Fallacies at the Heart of Q" on a
        new page on my "Mark Without Q" site. This is a summary /
        introductory-level version of a paper I have prepared for the
        Synoptics Section at this year's SBL. I'd be grateful, of course, for
        comments or criticisms, either on-list or off.>>

        I think this is an excellent systematic review of and challenge to arguments
        in favor of Q. I only wish to comment briefly on the first section. N.B. my
        responses are more comments than they are criticisms, and they are certainly
        not criticisms that in any way invalidate Mark's arguments.


        << "Marcan Priority is Identical to the Two-Source Theory"
        Many scholars and students of the New Testament labour under the
        misapprehension that the theory of Marcan Priority necessitates believing in
        the existence of Q, but this is a fallacy. >>

        A true statement of fact.

        <<The Two-Source Theory holds that Matthew and Luke used Mark independently
        of one another. This makes Q a necessity. It is the means of explaining the
        existence of double tradition material (the passages found only in Matthew
        and Luke).>>

        Again, incontestable statement of fact.

        <<However, the independence of Matthew and Luke is not a necessary element in
        the theory of Marcan Priority. The Farrer Theory strongly affirms the use of
        Mark by Matthew and Luke, adding that Luke also knew Matthew.>>

        Interesting the way this is worded: the FH affirms the use of Mark by Matthew
        and Luke. I understand "affirms" here in the sense of "asserts, presupposes",
        not "confirms", "demonstrates". I have noted before, but it is worth
        repeating, that Goulder's book "Luke: A New Paradigm", e.g., brilliantly
        demonstrates and illustrates Luke's use of Matthew. On the other hand, it
        merely presupposes (i.e., continues to presuppose) Luke's (and for that
        matter Matthew's) use of Mark and Marcan priority. Goulder is working with
        the detailed evidence of the text when he describes what Luke does with the
        text of Matthew. At that level, the evidence simply does not support Mark's
        priority to Luke (and hence Luke's use of Mark) in the same fashion. The
        overall theory of Marcan priority maintains its current appeal principally
        because of the argument based on what I have called the macro evidence of the
        Synoptic Problem.

        <<Some scholars are ignorant of the Farrer theory and this generates the
        mistaken impression that belief in Q is a key element in affirming Marcan
        Priority.

        In certain parts of the world, this impression is reinforced by the Griesbach
        (or "Two-Gospel") Hypothesis, which combines rejection of Q with rejection
        also of Marcan Priority. In places where Griesbach is the best known
        alternative to the dominant paradigm (e.g. in the U.S.A.), it is not
        surprising that some scholars assume that Q and Marcan Priority are
        inextricably linked. >>

        That Q and Marcan Priority are inextricably linked should not, of course, be
        assumed. This does not mean, however, that a valid (even if circuitous)
        argument cannot be made that would show there is indeed a connection, and
        more than merely an historical one, between the theories of Marcan Priority
        and Q. I believe that Farmer has attempted to argue this, but I am not sure
        where.

        <<The question that the Farrer Theory forces us to ask is this: does Luke's
        knowledge of Mark seem to be independent of Matthew's knowledge of Mark? Or
        are there signs that Luke knows not only Mark but also Matthew's reworking of
        Mark? >>

        Compared to the evidence that exists, this final question seems to me to
        imply a minimalist statement of Luke's indebtedness to Matthew. Of course if
        one understands the phrase "Matthew's reworking of Mark" to be exactly
        synonymous with "the Gospel of Matthew", then my objection has less weight.

        Leonard Maluf
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        Thanks to Mark G. for posting his paper on the fallacies at the heart of Q. I now wish to reply to one of Leonard s comments. ... I think it was Dungan,
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 5, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks to Mark G. for posting his paper on the fallacies at the
          heart of Q. I now wish to reply to one of Leonard's comments.

          At 09:20 AM 7/5/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
          >That Q and Marcan Priority are inextricably linked should not, of course, be
          >assumed. This does not mean, however, that a valid (even if circuitous)
          >argument cannot be made that would show there is indeed a connection, and
          >more than merely an historical one, between the theories of Marcan Priority
          >and Q. I believe that Farmer has attempted to argue this, but I am not sure
          >where.

          I think it was Dungan, "Mark--The Abridgement of Matthew and Luke" (1970:
          1:73, *1985:160-61) who argued that "it seems that the existence of Q has
          always been essential to the argument for Mark's priority--precisely as
          the loophole to invoke anytime one finds a pericope that is more primitive
          in Matthew and/or Luke when they were supposedly using Mark: the blessed
          overlap!"

          Dungan's observation can be faulted on the grounds that few scholars who
          have argued for Markan priority have even taken the trouble to discuss
          the parts of Mark that appear less primitive than Matthew and/or Luke.
          Thus, the true reason for the acceptance of Markan priority must lie
          elsewhere. G.M.Styler was a notable exception, and Styler did appeal
          to Q or at least an overlapping source of Matthew that is alleged to
          be more primitive than Mark.

          Stephen Carlson
          --
          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
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          ... [Mark Goodacre:]
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 6, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            ----------
            > From: Maluflen@...
            > To: M.S.Goodacre@...; Synoptic-L@...
            > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at the Heart of Q
            > Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 9:20 AM

            [Mark Goodacre:]
            <<The question that the Farrer Theory forces us to ask is this: does Luke's
            knowledge of Mark seem to be independent of Matthew's knowledge of Mark?
            Or are there signs that Luke knows not only Mark but also Matthew's
            reworking of Mark? >>

            > Compared to the evidence that exists, this final question seems to me to
            > imply a minimalist statement of Luke's indebtedness to Matthew.

            Dear Mark and Leonard,

            I'm glad to see that the idea of Lk being independent of Mt is being
            challenged. This part of 2ST is clearly untenable. Also I don't think it
            would be too surprising if some dependence of Mk on Mt can be demonstrated.

            But also we should not assume that Lk is necessarily all late and dependent
            on both Mk and Mt. In this, I agree with the recent post by Richard
            Anderson who pointed out that Luke's theology seems more primitive in a
            number of respects.

            You may recall that in my previous post of Apr 25, 2000 to Synoptic-L,
            entitled "Anointing Scene", I have argued for the priority of the Anointing
            Scene pericope in Lk, compared to Mt/Mk versions. So this is one example
            where Lk seems to contain some material that precedes both Mt and Mk.

            Now I have found some additional evidence that supports the priority of the
            Pepysian version of this pericope, and thus supports the idea that Lk
            preserves both the location of this pericope, and its original shape,
            better than Mt and Mk.

            More about this, in my next post.

            Best wishes,

            Yuri.

            Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

            Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

            The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
            equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... Many thanks for your message, and your response has brought up many issues, including the need for me to clarify aspects of my statement. First, my
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 7, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              At 07:44 AM 7/6/00 -0500, David Barrett Peabody wrote:
              >I, therefore, find it difficult to accept your claim that "few scholars who
              >have argued for Markan priority have even taken the trouble to discuss the
              >parts of Mark that appear less primitive than Matthew and/or Luke."
              >Consequently, I would also challenge your faulting of Dungan's observation
              >below on the basis of this claim.

              Many thanks for your message, and your response has brought up many
              issues, including the need for me to clarify aspects of my statement.

              First, my faulting of Dungan's observation was more of a back-handed
              dig against supporters of Markan priority, because I feel that many
              scholars in favor of Markan priority have simply not been thorough
              enough to consider the parts of Mark that appear less primitive, much
              less taken the step of explaining away the primitivity of those
              passages as due to an overlapping Q. For example, Stein's SYNOPTIC
              PROBLEM devotes 44 pages to establishing Markan priority (1987:
              45-88) but never raises the issue of parts of Mark being more
              primitive nor invokes Q. In fact, given Stein's methodology of
              proving Markan priority then proving Q (shared by Tuckett 1992),
              invoking Q in his argument for Markan priority would put the cart
              before the horse.

              Later on, Stein does discuss the Mark/Q overlap (1987: 100, 124-125),
              even citing Dungan's piece, but Dungan's criticisms are vis-a-vis
              primitivity are completely ignored. Rather, the troubling aspect
              to Stein is the existence of a literary relationship between Matthew
              and Luke that Mark cannot explain. Stein is not a pioneer here,
              because he basically follows Tuckett's treatment of the issue in
              REVIVAL, who wrote: "In fact, however, an overlap of sources is
              usually only postulated where Mark's account appears to offer a
              different version from the other two, but this different version
              need not necessarily be secondary." (1979: 77)

              Second, I intended, perhaps too unclearly, by "Markan priority"
              to mean priority of Mark over Matthew and Luke simpliciter as is
              commonly accepted now, not the priority of an Urmarkus that is
              no longer largely adopted. Also, Dungan's observation is about
              the use of Q to explain away alleged nonprimitivities, not about
              the use of Urmarkus.

              Koester is indeed a modern scholar who supports some kind of a
              proto-Mark, but this is due more to his theory about Morton
              Smith's Secret Mark than to purely intra-synoptic evidence.

              Thank you for citing Sanders's compilation of 46 or so suggested
              exceptions to the priority of Mark (1969: 290-293, *1985: 199-203);
              only two of these involve a Mark/Q overlap. In this connection,
              however, Sanders conceded that the broad view shown by the scholars
              who suggested these exceptions "has not become widely spread, and
              rigidity seems to be the rule." (1969: 279). Many of those cited
              by Sanders, e.g. J. Weiss, Bultmann, argued for an Urmarkus rather
              than pure Markan priority, and the others (Taylor, Black) really
              did not *argue* for Mark's priority. For example, Taylor wrote:
              "Significant of the stability of critical opinion is the fact
              that, in a modern commentary, it is no longer necessary to prove
              the priority of Mark." (Taylor 1952: 11, followed by a one sentence
              summary of Streeter 1924).

              This brings us to Streeter's FOUR GOSPELS (1924). It is true
              that Streeter addressed the Mark/Q overlaps on pp. 186-191,
              but Streeter did so to disavow his earlier (1911) position that
              Mark used Q. Streeter could have addressed the parts of Mark
              that were alleged to be secondary when he considered Jameson's
              revival of the traditional Augustinian Hypothesis; however,
              Streeter disposed of that hypothesis only by arguing that
              Mark is not an abbreviation (1924: 158). None of Streeter's
              arguments later in the chapter really addressed alleged
              nonprimitive features of Mark, except in respect to Urmarkus,
              where the concern is more about an extra-Markan connection
              between Matthew and Luke rather than alleged nonprimitivity:
              "The essential point that emerges is that in the great
              majority of cases where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark,
              the EXISTING TEXT OF MARK SEEMS THE MORE PRIMITIVE and
              original." (180, emphasis original) These remaining cases
              Streeter handled by textual criticism (181).

              Interestingly, Streeter did later admit "three cases where
              Matthew's account appears to be in some ways more original
              than Mark's" (259), but Streeter's explanation is to posit
              a Mark/M overlap. (259-261)

              In short, few scholars have (a) argued for Mark's priority,
              (b) recognized that parts of Mark are secondary, and (c) appealed
              to a Mark/Q overlap as the answer. Styler, cited by Dungan,
              is one example. Are there others?

              Stephen Carlson
              --
              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
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Stephen Carlson wrote -- ... H. T. Fleddermann in Mark and Q (Leuven, 1995) claims to show -- (1) Everywhere in the overlap texts Mark is secondary to Q --
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 7, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Stephen Carlson wrote --
                >
                >Few scholars have (a) argued for Mark's priority, (b) recognized that
                >parts of Mark are secondary, and (c) appealed to a Mark/Q overlap as
                >the answer. Styler, cited by Dungan, is one example. Are there
                >others?
                >
                H. T. Fleddermann in "Mark and Q" (Leuven, 1995) claims to show --

                "(1) Everywhere in the overlap texts Mark is secondary to Q" -- (heading
                of section on pages 209-210)

                "(2) In the overlap texts Mark reflects the redactional text of Q" --
                (heading of section on pages 211-213)

                "(3) The differences between Mark and Q in the overlap texts stem from
                Marcan redaction" -- (heading of section on pages 213 to 214).

                Best wishes,
                BRIAN WILSON

                E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
              • Yuri Kuchinsky
                ... [omissions] ... I don t know if this is really so, Stephen. I m familiar with Koester s arguments in this regard, but I never got the impression that the
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 7, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----------
                  > From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                  > To: Synoptic-L@...
                  > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at the Heart of Q
                  > Date: Friday, July 07, 2000 6:41 AM

                  [omissions]

                  > Koester is indeed a modern scholar who supports some kind of a
                  > proto-Mark, but this is due more to his theory about Morton
                  > Smith's Secret Mark than to purely intra-synoptic evidence.

                  I don't know if this is really so, Stephen. I'm familiar with Koester's
                  arguments in this regard, but I never got the impression that the Secret
                  Mark really plays such a big role for him in this area. And in any case,
                  according to Koester, Secret Mark was not a part of the proto-Mark, but a
                  possible intermediate stage between it and the canonical Mk.

                  One may also note that Alfred Loisy also argued for a proto-Mark that
                  seemed very similar to the one Koester argues for currently but, for
                  obvious reasons, Loisy could not have known about the Secret Mark.

                  In general, among other things, both Loisy and Koester argue that proto-Mk
                  is a good way to explain numerous agreements of Mt and Lk against the
                  canonical Mk.

                  Best regards,

                  Yuri.

                  Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                  Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy

                  The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                  equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                • Stephen C. Carlson
                  ... Then you ought to be familiar with Koester s article History and Development of Mark s Gospel (From Mark to SECRET MARK and Canonical Mark ) in Bruce C.
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 7, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 05:51 PM 7/7/00 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
                    >> From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                    >> Koester is indeed a modern scholar who supports some kind of a
                    >> proto-Mark, but this is due more to his theory about Morton
                    >> Smith's Secret Mark than to purely intra-synoptic evidence.
                    >
                    >I don't know if this is really so, Stephen. I'm familiar with Koester's
                    >arguments in this regard, but I never got the impression that the Secret
                    >Mark really plays such a big role for him in this area.

                    Then you ought to be familiar with Koester's article "History and
                    Development of Mark's Gospel (From Mark to SECRET MARK and 'Canonical
                    Mark')" in Bruce C. Corley, ed., COLLOQUY ON NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES:
                    A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches (Macon, Ga.: Mercer U.
                    Press, 1983), where Koester argues that ad hoc approaches to the
                    Minor Agreements are less viable due to the "recent discovery of
                    a SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK." (p.36)

                    Stephen Carlson
                    --
                    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
                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                    ... However, Fleddermann does not (a) argue for Mark s priority, he assumes it. Fleddermann does not actually (b) recognize that parts of Mark are secondary
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jul 8, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 04:14 PM 7/7/00 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                      >Stephen Carlson wrote --
                      >>Few scholars have (a) argued for Mark's priority, (b) recognized that
                      >>parts of Mark are secondary, and (c) appealed to a Mark/Q overlap as
                      >>the answer. Styler, cited by Dungan, is one example. Are there
                      >>others?
                      >>
                      >H. T. Fleddermann in "Mark and Q" (Leuven, 1995) claims to show --
                      >"(1) Everywhere in the overlap texts Mark is secondary to Q"
                      >"(2) In the overlap texts Mark reflects the redactional text of Q"
                      >"(3) The differences between Mark and Q in the overlap texts stem from
                      >Marcan redaction"

                      However, Fleddermann does not (a) argue for Mark's priority, he assumes
                      it. Fleddermann does not actually (b) recognize that parts of Mark are
                      secondary to Matthew and Luke, because (see p.19) he compares Mark to his
                      reconstruction of Q, which by his method is more primitive than either.
                      Finally, Fleddermann does not (c) posit a Mark/Q overlap to save Markan
                      priority by accounting for instances of alleged primitivity of either
                      Matthew or Luke. Rather, Fleddermann takes the set of Mark/Q overlaps
                      as a given and attempts to assess the relationship between Mark and Q.

                      Dungan properly criticized Styler for appealing to Q to bolster his
                      case for Markan priority. Since few scholars have followed Styler's
                      here lead after Dungan's criticism, Dungan was successful and, in
                      that respect, should not be faulted.

                      Stephen Carlson
                      --
                      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
                    • Yuri Kuchinsky
                      ... Yes, Stephen, I m familiar with this article by Koester, but I don t know how much can be based on this one phrase that you cite. The larger meaning of
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jul 9, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ----------
                        > From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                        > To: Synoptic-L@...
                        > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at the Heart of Q
                        > Date: Friday, July 07, 2000 10:46 PM
                        >
                        > At 05:51 PM 7/7/00 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
                        > >> From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                        > >> Koester is indeed a modern scholar who supports some kind of a
                        > >> proto-Mark, but this is due more to his theory about Morton
                        > >> Smith's Secret Mark than to purely intra-synoptic evidence.
                        > >
                        > >I don't know if this is really so, Stephen. I'm familiar with Koester's
                        > >arguments in this regard, but I never got the impression that the Secret
                        > >Mark really plays such a big role for him in this area.
                        >
                        > Then you ought to be familiar with Koester's article "History and
                        > Development of Mark's Gospel (From Mark to SECRET MARK and 'Canonical
                        > Mark')" in Bruce C. Corley, ed., COLLOQUY ON NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES:
                        > A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches (Macon, Ga.: Mercer U.
                        > Press, 1983), where Koester argues that ad hoc approaches to the
                        > Minor Agreements are less viable due to the "recent discovery of
                        > a SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK." (p.36)

                        Yes, Stephen, I'm familiar with this article by Koester, but I don't know
                        how much can be based on this one phrase that you cite. The larger meaning
                        of this phrase, as cited, is not entirely clear. But Koester has dedicated
                        plenty of space in his later book "Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History
                        and Development", Cambridge, Mass., 1990, to the analysis of his proto-Mk
                        theory, and there he did not treat the Secret Mark as the central element
                        of his theory.

                        Also, recently I've read a very good treatment by Boismard of the problem
                        of possible pre-canonical gospel sources in Dungan, D.L. (ed.) 1990 _The
                        Interrelations of the Gospels_ (Leuven: Leuven University Press). These are
                        the proceedings of a Symposium led by Boismard, Farmer, and Neirynck. In
                        his article THEORIE DES NIVEAUX MULTIPLES, Boismard notes that these pMk
                        theories were already accepted by Bultmann, who was of course the teacher
                        of Koester. As Boismard says below, the main impetus for the acceptance of
                        these theories by the adherents of the 2ST was the need to explain the
                        agreements of Mt/Lk against Mk in the sections that they have in common,

                        "Pour rendre compte des accord Mt/Lk contre Mc, dans les sections qu'ils
                        ont en commun, nombre d'adeptes de la theorie des Deux Sources, dont
                        Bultmann, ont ete contraints d'admettre que Mt et Lc dependraient, non du
                        Mc actuel, mais d'une forme plus ancienne: proto-Marc ou Ur-Markus." (p.
                        232)

                        So then obviously this had nothing to do with the Secret Mark.

                        Regards,

                        Yuri.

                        Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                        Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

                        The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                        equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                      • Mark Goodacre
                        ... Thanks for this interesting point. It helps to contextualise Dungan s blessed overlap comment, which, after all, was written in 1970. At that time
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jul 14, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 8 Jul 00, at 13:53, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                          > Dungan properly criticized Styler for appealing to Q to bolster his
                          > case for Markan priority. Since few scholars have followed Styler's
                          > here lead after Dungan's criticism, Dungan was successful and, in
                          > that respect, should not be faulted.

                          Thanks for this interesting point. It helps to contextualise Dungan's
                          "blessed overlap" comment, which, after all, was written in 1970.
                          At that time Styler's defence of Marcan Priority (in Moule's _Birth of
                          the New Testament_ published in 1962) was pretty recent, so we
                          should not be surprised that Dungan picks up on it. I note that
                          G.M. Styler's much later and briefer statement, "Synoptic Problem"
                          in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (eds.), The Oxford
                          Companion to the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993),
                          pp. 724-7, does not make the same point. Indeed, the Mark-Q
                          overlaps are hardly referred to in this article and Styler focuses on
                          the Minor Agreements as more problematic.

                          Tuckett picks up on Dungan's comment in _Q and the History of
                          Early Christianity_, p. 34: "Contra Dungan, such an overlap is
                          postulated not to explain cases where a pericope in Matthew /
                          Luke is more primitive than in Mark, but simply where a different
                          version seems to have been used by Matthew and Luke alone". He
                          goes on to suggest that Mark-Q overlaps are "one of the strongest
                          arguments in favour of a form of the 2ST" but I think this quite
                          mistaken, for reasons I have begun to outline on the "Fallacies"
                          page on my Mark-Without-Q site.

                          Mark
                          ---------------------------
                          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                          Dept of Theology
                          University of Birmingham Fax.: +44 (0)121 414 6866
                          Birmingham B15 2TT Tel.: +44 (0)121 414 7512

                          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                          Homepage
                          http://www.ntgateway.com
                          The New Testament Gateway
                        • Brian E. Wilson
                          Mark Goodacre wrote -- ... Just to comment on the argument considered in section 1 -- Marcan Priority is Identical to the Two-Source Theory . This can be set
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jul 26, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Mark Goodacre wrote --
                            >
                            >I've outlined what I see as "Five Fallacies at the Heart of Q" on a
                            >new page on my "Mark Without Q" site. This is a summary /
                            >introductory-level version of a paper I have prepared for the
                            >Synoptics Section at this year's SBL. I'd be grateful, of course, for
                            >comments or criticisms, either on-list or off.
                            >
                            Just to comment on the argument considered in section 1 --"Marcan
                            Priority is Identical to the Two-Source Theory". This can be set out as
                            an argument as follows --

                            A1. If we assume Marcan Priority, then the double tradition can be
                            explained only by assuming that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark
                            and a hypothetical source Q.

                            This would seem to be a fallacy because it does not allow for the
                            possibility that Matthew could in some way have obtained the double
                            tradition material, Luke then obtaining this from Matthew. We can set
                            this out as an argument --

                            A2. If we assume Marcan Priority then the double tradition can be
                            explained **EITHER** by assuming that Matthew and Luke independently
                            used Mark and a hypothetical source Q, **OR** by assuming that in some
                            way Matthew obtained the double tradition material, that Matthew used
                            Mark, and Luke used Mark and Matthew.

                            Now A2 shows that A1 is a fallacy only if A2 is a valid argument. Is A2
                            valid? Or is A2 perhaps a fallacy any way? That all depends. To show
                            that A2 is not fallacious we need to show that Matthew could have
                            obtained the double tradition material in some way.

                            So to show Al is a fallacy we need to show that Matthew could in some
                            way have obtained the double tradition.

                            I would suggest that the draft article "Fallacies at the Heart of Q"
                            does not show that A1 is a fallacy, because it fails to show that
                            Matthew could in some way have obtained the double tradition material.

                            I would also suggest that this is no easy task. For if the double
                            tradition was in Matthew, then of course Luke could have taken it from
                            Matthew. But how did the double tradition get into Matthew? Unless this
                            is explained, A2 is a fallacy.

                            It would seem there are two explanations of how the double tradition got
                            into Matthew, - (a) Matthew fabricated all the non-Marcan material in
                            his gospel out of his own head, including the double tradition which
                            Luke then obtained from Matthew, or (b) Matthew used source material
                            (oral or documentary) to obtain all the non-Marcan material in his
                            gospel, again Luke using some of this.

                            Now alternative (a) might not be regarded as an explanation of the
                            origin of the double tradition at all. Many would consider it most
                            improbable that the synoptist Matthew should have invented the whole of
                            the double tradition and the whole of special Matthew (some 560 verses
                            of material, that is more than half of the gospel of Matthew). On the
                            other hand, alternative (b) would also seem to have difficulties. For if
                            Matthew used source material, whether oral or documentary, how do we
                            know that this was not also available to Luke and used by him? Why
                            should not this hypothetical oral or documentary source have included
                            hypothetical Q? In other words, this could be Q being admitted by the
                            back door.

                            It seems to me, therefore, that it is not at all easy to show that A1 is
                            a fallacy by considering the theoretical alternative that Matthew used
                            Mark, and Luke used Matthew and Mark. If we affirm Marcan Priority and
                            dispense with Q, we still have to explain the occurrence of double
                            tradition material in Matthew.

                            Best wishes,
                            BRIAN WILSON

                            E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                            Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                            > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                            > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                            _
                          • Karel Hanhart
                            Thanks to Mark G. for posting his paper on the fallacies at the heart of Q. I now wish to reply to one of Leonard s comments. ... I think it was Dungan, Mark
                            Message 13 of 14 , Oct 31, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks to Mark G. for posting his paper on the fallacies at the
                              heart of Q. I now wish to reply to one of Leonard's comments.

                              At 09:20 AM 7/5/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                              >That Q and Marcan Priority are inextricably linked should not, of course, be
                              >assumed. This does not mean, however, that a valid (even if circuitous)
                              >argument cannot be made that would show there is indeed a connection, and
                              >more than merely an historical one, between the theories of Marcan Priority
                              >and Q. I believe that Farmer has attempted to argue this, but I am not sure
                              >where.

                              I think it was Dungan, "Mark The Abridgement of Matthew and Luke" (1970:
                              1:73, *1985:160-61) who argued that "it seems that the existence of Q
                              has
                              always been essential to the argument for Mark's priority--precisely as
                              the loophole to invoke anytime one finds a pericope that is more
                              primitive
                              in Matthew and/or Luke when they were supposedly using Mark: the blessed
                              overlap!"

                              Dungan's observation can be faulted on the grounds that few scholars who
                              have argued for Markan priority have even taken the trouble to discuss
                              the parts of Mark that appear less primitive than Matthew and/or Luke.
                              Thus, the true reason for the acceptance of Markan priority must lie
                              elsewhere. G.M.Styler was a notable exception, and Styler did appeal
                              to Q or at least an overlapping source of Matthew that is alleged to
                              be more primitive than Mark.

                              Stephen Carlson
                              --
                              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


                              Stephen,

                              I am arguing for Markan priority. And in a former posting I have offered
                              an example of "parts of Mark that appear less primitive than Matthew
                              and/or Luke".
                              It is Mark 1,2.3 that belongs to the triple tradition but with an odd
                              addition.
                              Mark announces a prophecy by Isaiah but starts out by citing Exod. and
                              Malachi.
                              As I understand it, Mark composed a midrash on Ex 23,20; Mal 3,1 and Isa
                              40,3.
                              Isa 40,3 reminds the reader at once of the text that follows re. the
                              "euaggelion"
                              and "euaggelizein" (Isa 40,9 ; cf Mk 1,1). This famous prophecy re.
                              Zion, herald
                              of good tidings was well loved in the early ecclesia as e.g. Paul's
                              letters demonstrate.
                              But in Mark's post-70 revision, the passage from Isaiah is now preceded
                              with a mixture
                              of passages from Exodus and Malachi. Space does not allow me to analyze
                              this opening
                              midrash in detail. But this curious phenomenon of NOT mentioning the
                              Torah and Malachi
                              was, I think, bound to draw the attention of his Christian Judean
                              (IOUDAIOI] readers
                              to precisely these preceding texts; in particular to the context of
                              judgment in
                              Malachi: The angel of JHWH "will purify the descendants of Levi".."by
                              fire" (Mal 3,2.3).
                              It is a fine example of a midrash . Mark still reminds his readers of
                              the beloved
                              passage re: "Zion, herald of good tidings", but at the outset of his
                              revision he
                              now reminds his readers in the ecclesia of the grim reality of the day:
                              Zion fallen, the temple (of the sons of Levi) in ruins, no parousia!
                              Mt and Lk still use Isa 40,3 but they have broken up Mark's midrash. Mt
                              applies the midrash
                              on Exod 23,20/Mal 3,1 strictly to the Baptizer alone and Lk later omits
                              this midrash
                              altogether and cites Isa 40,3-5 with regard to ther baptism of
                              repentance for the
                              forgiveness of sins. But both Matthew (3,3) and Luke (3,4) retain the
                              association
                              of Isaiah 40,3 with the mission of the Baptizer which they found in the
                              older pre-70 document.
                              And they refrain from using the word 'euaggelion' for their own title
                              (with the harsh
                              Markan combination with Mal 3) and they drop euaggelion where Mark had
                              introduced it to
                              clarify his specific use of euaggelion: 8,35; 10,29.

                              Would this example meet with your approval? How do you read it?

                              Karel





                              of a citation

                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Bob MacDonald - AMA
                              ... “Luke-pleasing” elements of Matthew in the third Gospel. [19] In particular, we should not be surprised that Luke s version of Peter s Confession (Luke
                              Message 14 of 14 , Nov 1, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In the Fallacies article, Mark Goodacre writes:

                                >>We will expect to find, to use Austin Farrer's phrase, only the
                                “Luke-pleasing” elements of Matthew in the third Gospel. [19] In particular,
                                we should not be surprised that Luke's version of Peter's Confession (Luke
                                9.22-26) does not feature Matthew's additions about the ascendancy of Peter.
                                After all, Luke's Gospel is not as positive about Peter overall as is
                                Matthew's, and the narrative development of Luke-Acts – in which Peter
                                progressively recedes further and further into the background – would seem
                                to exclude the possibility of Luke's inclusion of the Matthean statement. It
                                is exactly the kind of Matthean addition to Mark that we would expect Luke
                                to omit. <<

                                The process of interpreting redaction seems to require the imputation of
                                likes and dislikes to the redactor.

                                While I might like the theory that requires fewer buttresses, how would you
                                know this if I didn't tell you? My inner likes and dislikes could follow
                                Occam's pattern or I might prefer something more Baroque and inefficient.

                                The above statement by Farrer is more light hearted than many statements of
                                motive. A quick for instance is the common appeal to 'competition' between
                                the BD and Peter in John. The Peter-preference of Matthew over Luke is also
                                being noted in the above quote. Am I right to contend that if there is to be
                                a 'preference' for Peter imputed to Au. Matthew or a 'preference' for others
                                in another Gospel, that it should have a measurable piece of evidence behind
                                it (other than the projection of our own likes and dislikes)?

                                Another example: "Luke is making clear that _he is critical_ of his
                                predecessors' work and that his radical re-ordering of Matthew is in the
                                interest of providing Theophilus with the truth of those things in which he
                                has been catechized."

                                How do we know that Luke is 'critical'? Is Matthew 'untrue' because Luke has
                                written things 'in order'? Is Matthew necessarily then 'out of order'? Luke
                                clearly tells us in some of his writing that there was sharp division among
                                believers. He does not say here that there is division between himself and
                                his source material in his Gospel. He specifically says they also wrote 'in
                                order'. (1:1) Unhappily, my Greek is insufficient to distinguish the nuance
                                of anatassomai (1:1) vs pasin akribos kathexis (1:3).

                                I read others saying that Luke is 'correcting' a prior Gospel. Without Luke
                                saying 'I am correcting so and so', it seems to me that the imputation of
                                correction as a motive is assuming too much. If I were to impute a motive to
                                Luke, I would say that he enjoyed the opportunity he had to teach
                                Theophilus. He was not operating out of a need to correct previous authors
                                at all.

                                Any comments - I don't mind being corrected.

                                Bob

                                mailto::BobMacDonald@...
                                + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

                                Catch the foxes for us,
                                the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
                                for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
                                http://members.home.net/bobmacdonald/homepage.htm



                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.