Re: [Synoptic-L] SBL Synoptics Section
- View SourceAt 01:26 AM 9/6/00 +0100, Mark Goodacre wrote:
>http://personal1.stthomas.edu/dtlandry/synoptic.htmlThank you for posting this notice. All of the papers are good,
>Included are papers by Jeff Peterson, Mark Matson and me under
>the general heading "Marcan Priority Without Q"
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
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
- View Source----------
> From: Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre@...>Mark,
> 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:
> Included are papers by Jeff Peterson, Mark Matson and me under
> the general heading "Marcan Priority Without Q"
I liked your article _A Monopoly on Marcan Priority_,
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
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
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.
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