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

Re: [Synoptic-L] SBL Synoptics Section

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... Thank you for posting this notice. All of the papers are good, and I whole-hearted recommend them. It is interesting to see if Kloppenborg Verbin in his
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 5, 2000
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      At 01:26 AM 9/6/00 +0100, Mark Goodacre wrote:
      >http://personal1.stthomas.edu/dtlandry/synoptic.html
      >
      >Included are papers by Jeff Peterson, Mark Matson and me under
      >the general heading "Marcan Priority Without Q"

      Thank you for posting this notice. All of the papers are good,
      and I whole-hearted recommend them.

      It is interesting to see if Kloppenborg Verbin in his recent
      EXCAVATING Q committed any of the five fallacies identified
      in the Goodacre paper.

      In Kloppenborg Verbin's argument for Q, he makes five observations,
      treating together three anti-Q hypotheses, Griesbach, Augustine, and
      Farrer. By explicitly considering the FH, he did technically avoid
      Fallacy 1 (Markan Priority = 2ST), but inclusion of the FH with the
      GH and the AH in the entire discussion renders the FH somewhat guilty
      by association. For example, his fourth observation (Mark's poorer
      Greek) only applies the GH and the AH, and his fifth observation
      (mutual primitivity; cf. Fallacy 5) does not apply to Goulder's form
      of the FH. Because the first observation (Mark is medial) is not
      actually an argument against the Q alternatives, only two of Kloppenborg
      Verbin's observations are actually directed against the FH.

      Kloppenborg Verbin's second observation (alleged failure of Luke to
      reproduce Matthew's contexts) runs dangerously close to Fallacy 3
      (Luke is artistically inferior). He perhaps saves the argument by
      pointing out a weakness in the anti-Q theories that Luke's arrangement
      must be accounted for exclusively in intentional terms. His third
      observation, however, runs directly afoul of Fallacy 2 (Luke's ignorance
      of Matthew's additions to Mark).

      In sum, Kloppenborg Verbin's case against Farrer, if we are to
      discount those that depend on the fallacies that Goodacre identified,
      rests solely on the half-observation that it is too daunting to
      account for Luke's order of the double tradition with strictly
      intention arguments, as required by the FH. Is this a valid
      criticism?

      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, I liked your article _A Monopoly on Marcan Priority_, http://personal1.stthomas.edu/dtlandry/goodacre.html I think it is very good in pointing out
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 7, 2000
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        ----------
        > From: Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre@...>
        > To: Synoptic-L@...
        > Subject: [Synoptic-L] SBL Synoptics Section
        > Date: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 8:26 PM
        >
        > Subscribers may be interested to see details of the Synoptics
        > Section at this year's SBL Meeting in Nashville, now available on
        > David Landry's homepage at the following URL:
        >
        > http://personal1.stthomas.edu/dtlandry/synoptic.html
        >
        > Included are papers by Jeff Peterson, Mark Matson and me under
        > the general heading "Marcan Priority Without Q"

        Mark,

        I liked your article _A Monopoly on Marcan Priority_,

        http://personal1.stthomas.edu/dtlandry/goodacre.html

        I think it is very good in pointing out all the faults and weaknesses of
        2ST. And the other two articles there, by Jeffrey Peterson, and Mark A.
        Matson, are also quite good.

        In particular, "Mark-Q overlaps", and all those all-too-numerous "Minor
        Agreements" (750 of them!) do present serious problems for the 2ST dogma.
        Also, _Insular Communities vs. Church Universal_ section in Jeffrey's paper
        is quite relevant in pointing out the improbability of there being any
        "isolated Christian communities" that didn't know what gospels other
        Christians were using. All this should give 2ST adherents some grounds for
        concern.

        2ST tends to be way too simplistic, it seems to me, in making many
        assumptions that are quite tenuous. It is indeed difficult to believe that
        Mt and Lk were written in isolation from each other.

        But of course a good argument against 2ST does not yet assure us that we
        have a better alternative, because all the major alternative theories
        current today may also have their own faults that are no less serious. And
        it is not clear to me that FGM is necessarily a stronger theory than 2ST.

        You write towards the end,

        "At other times it may be because the Lucan version indeed exhibits, when
        all things have been considered, signs of greater primitivity. I do not
        think that the number of such passages is large, but it is worth looking at
        what the implications of the presence of such passages would be. Do they
        necessitate the existence of Q?"

        Well, it is just possible that these apparently primitive passages in Lk do
        not necessitate the existence of Q. You appeal to "the role of oral
        tradition in Gospel relationships", and this is one way to deal with this
        difficulty. But the problem is that these more primitive passages in Lk are
        certainly not confined merely to the sayings of Jesus. And is the number of
        such passages really not large? To the contrary, they appear to be very
        numerous.

        Indeed, there are also great many non-sayings passages in Lk that appear to
        be more primitive. For example, the whole Passion sequence is replete with
        these passages. Such as Lk 22:39-46, the Agony in the Garden, where the
        disciples fall asleep only once, rather than three times as in Mt/Mk. It is
        easy enough to see in this case which one is the more primitive version.
        And I've also listed other such apparently more primitive passages in Lk
        before, such as the Anointing, and others.

        These numerous primitive elements in Lk do constitute a very serious
        problem for FGM, in my view. One way to resolve this and all other Synoptic
        conundrums is to suppose that all three Synoptics (and perhaps Jn as well)
        are based on a more primitive proto-gospel source document. Both Koester
        and Loisy propose proto-Mk as such more primitive source document, but a
        proto-Lk can also be suggested.

        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.