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

[Synoptic-L] A Widely-Accepted Standard?

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    In an online review of Martin Hengel s The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (surely one of the clumsiest titles in recent times, tho it may
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 16, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      In an online review of Martin Hengel's "The Four Gospels and the One Gospel
      of Jesus Christ" (surely one of the clumsiest titles in recent times, tho
      it may flow more smoothly in German), Jim West writes that "Hengel ...
      [adopts] the widely accepted standard of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John."
      What I'm wondering is whether Jim is right about that. What I mean, of
      course, is whether Jim is right to say that the given order is "the widely
      accepted standard" and, if so, whether that means that it's the current
      majority view of NT scholars. Nothing hangs on the answer except my
      assumption that most scholars would place Matt before Luke. I'm willing to
      give up that assumption, but I'd like a second opinion to Jim's before
      doing so.

      Mike Grondin
      ref: http://www.jesusarchive.com/books_reviews_Hengel.html

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... I can t open the Jesus archive review at the moment, so haven t had a chance to look at Jim s review, but my impression would be that this is not the
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On 17 Oct 2001, at 2:38, Michael Grondin wrote:

        > In an online review of Martin Hengel's "The Four Gospels and the One
        > Gospel of Jesus Christ" (surely one of the clumsiest titles in recent
        > times, tho it may flow more smoothly in German), Jim West writes that
        > "Hengel ... [adopts] the widely accepted standard of Mark, Luke,
        > Matthew and John." What I'm wondering is whether Jim is right about
        > that. What I mean, of course, is whether Jim is right to say that the
        > given order is "the widely accepted standard" and, if so, whether that
        > means that it's the current majority view of NT scholars.

        I can't open the Jesus archive review at the moment, so haven't had
        a chance to look at Jim's review, but my impression would be that
        this is not the current majority view. Of course Mark first is
        majority, but opinions divide on which of Matt. and Luke come first.
        I reckon that there is a tendency to place Luke slightly after Matt.
        chronologically, but of course the Two-Source Theory (as normally
        formulated) is predicated on the assumption of Matthew's and
        Luke's independence of one another, so there is a relatively narrow
        window for the two of them to appear independently of one another.
        A striking exception to the rule that they must have appeared
        around the same time is Burton L. Mack, who (if I remember
        correctly) places Matt. around 80 and Luke about 40 years later in
        120.

        Hengel's view, which maintains Q plus Matthew's knowledge of
        Luke is very unusual.

        Mark
        -----------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
        Birmingham B15 2TT
        United Kingdom

        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
        Homepage
        http://NTGateway.com
        The New Testament Gateway

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • John C. Poirier
        Michael: I think you are correct to doubt West s representation of the dominant chronological ordering of the gospels. Most scholars tend to date Matthew ten
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Michael:

          I think you are correct to doubt West's representation of the dominant
          chronological ordering of the gospels. Most scholars tend to date Matthew
          ten or fifteen years ahead of Luke.

          Their only reason for doing so, however, seems to be the Jewishness of
          Matthew's gospel, compared to Luke's "catholicness", and this seems to me to
          be a rather weak justification for a particular scheme. Contrary to the
          usual assumptions, I suggest that there are indications of relatively late
          doctrinal developments in Matthew (esp. the tradition of Jesus' descent into
          hell), and that we should think seriously about putting Matthew in the late
          80's or 90's.


          John C. Poirier
          Middletown, Ohio


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Michael Grondin" <mgrondin@...>
          To: <synoptic-L@...>
          Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 1:38 AM
          Subject: [Synoptic-L] A Widely-Accepted Standard?


          > In an online review of Martin Hengel's "The Four Gospels and the One
          Gospel
          > of Jesus Christ" (surely one of the clumsiest titles in recent times, tho
          > it may flow more smoothly in German), Jim West writes that "Hengel ...
          > [adopts] the widely accepted standard of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John."
          > What I'm wondering is whether Jim is right about that. What I mean, of
          > course, is whether Jim is right to say that the given order is "the widely
          > accepted standard" and, if so, whether that means that it's the current
          > majority view of NT scholars. Nothing hangs on the answer except my
          > assumption that most scholars would place Matt before Luke. I'm willing to
          > give up that assumption, but I'd like a second opinion to Jim's before
          > doing so.
          >
          > Mike Grondin



          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Zeba Crook
          I just want to make a few points of clarification in this debate about the likely order of Matt and Luke: Mark Goodacre wrote: . . . but of course the
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            I just want to make a few points of clarification in this debate about the
            likely order of Matt and Luke:

            Mark Goodacre wrote:
            " . . . but of course the Two-Source Theory (as normally formulated) is
            predicated on the assumption of Matthew's and Luke's independence of one
            another, so there is a relatively narrow window for the two of them to appear
            independently of one another."

            Matt/Luke independence is not "assumed." It is rejected by the 2DH because of
            the implausibility of what Luke is required to have done to Matt (Tuckett, Q and
            the History of Early Xity; Kloppenborg Verbin, Ex. Q). One can disagree with
            their rendition of "implausible", but one cannot call it an assumption.

            John C. Poirier wrote:

            > I think you are correct to doubt West's representation of the dominant
            > chronological ordering of the gospels. Most scholars tend to date Matthew
            > ten or fifteen years ahead of Luke.
            >
            > Their only reason for doing so, however, seems to be the Jewishness of
            > Matthew's gospel, compared to Luke's "catholicness", and this seems to me to
            > be a rather weak justification for a particular scheme. Contrary to the
            > usual assumptions, I suggest that there are indications of relatively late
            > doctrinal developments in Matthew (esp. the tradition of Jesus' descent into
            > hell), and that we should think seriously about putting Matthew in the late
            > 80's or 90's.

            I believe Ehrman (The NT: A Historical Introduction) and Mark Powell (Fortress
            Intro to the Gospels) to be fair representations of the consensus. Ehrman has
            Matt and Luke within 5 years (80-85) and Powell within 10 years (80-90).
            Neither speculates on how much time separates them, and neither mentions
            Jewishness vs. universality as a condition for dating.

            This, I believe, is the consensus.

            Zeb

            ***

            Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand)
            University of St. Michael's College
            Faculty of Theology
            81 St. Mary Street
            Toronto, Ontario, Canada
            M5S 1J4

            (416) 964-8629
            http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~kquinn/
            (please note new web page address)


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Mark Goodacre
            ... Thanks for the clarification, Zeba. Of course I realise that proponents of the 2ST don t assume Matthaean and Lucan independence in the sense of not
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              On 17 Oct 2001, at 7:55, Zeba Crook wrote:

              > I just want to make a few points of clarification in this debate about
              > the likely order of Matt and Luke:
              >
              > Mark Goodacre wrote:
              > " . . . but of course the Two-Source Theory (as normally formulated)
              > is predicated on the assumption of Matthew's and Luke's independence
              > of one another, so there is a relatively narrow window for the two of
              > them to appear independently of one another."
              >
              > Matt/Luke independence is not "assumed." It is rejected by the 2DH
              > because of the implausibility of what Luke is required to have done to
              > Matt (Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Xity; Kloppenborg Verbin,
              > Ex. Q). One can disagree with their rendition of "implausible", but
              > one cannot call it an assumption.

              Thanks for the clarification, Zeba. Of course I realise that
              proponents of the 2ST don't "assume" Matthaean and Lucan
              independence in the sense of not arguing for it. I mean that
              Matthew's and Luke's use of Mark and Q is the logical corollary of
              the prior postulate, that Matthew and Luke used Mark
              independently of one another. Thus the above sentence uses the
              word "assumption" in the same way that I would (and do) talk
              about, say, the Farrer theory building on the assumption of the
              priority of Mark. That doesn't mean that I "assume" the priority of
              Mark without arguing for it; on the contrary, I've spent some time
              attempting to argue for it. Perhaps, though, this is not a helpful
              word to use if it is thought necessary for it to be clarified as above,
              and it's important we aren't talking past each other if we are to have
              constructive dialogue.

              All best
              Mark


              -----------------------------
              Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
              Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
              University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
              Birmingham B15 2TT
              United Kingdom

              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
              Homepage
              http://NTGateway.com
              The New Testament Gateway

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
              That is certainly the perception that a lot of the Jesus Seminar literature, especially that of Crossan (sp?), attempts to create. It is certainly a widely
              Message 6 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                That is certainly the perception that a lot of the Jesus Seminar
                literature, especially that of Crossan (sp?), attempts to create.
                It is certainly "a" widely accepted standard, whether it is the
                majority view or not would depend on where and how far
                you would cast your net of scholars to survey.

                ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
                ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
                ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
                mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
                "The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different
                stages of composition, but even of complete communities whose
                beliefs are accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens
                a naive willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing
                like Mark (let alone Paul)." N. T. Wright




                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Maluflen@aol.com
                In a message dated 10/17/2001 7:58:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, zeba.crook@utoronto.ca writes:
                Message 7 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 10/17/2001 7:58:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  zeba.crook@... writes:

                  <<
                  Mark Goodacre wrote:
                  " . . . but of course the Two-Source Theory (as normally formulated) is
                  predicated on the assumption of Matthew's and Luke's independence of one
                  another, so there is a relatively narrow window for the two of them to appear
                  independently of one another."

                  Matt/Luke independence is not "assumed." It is rejected by the 2DH because
                  of
                  the implausibility of what Luke is required to have done to Matt (Tuckett, Q
                  and
                  the History of Early Xity; Kloppenborg Verbin, Ex. Q). One can disagree with
                  their rendition of "implausible", but one cannot call it an assumption.>>

                  Mark Goodacre's own response to this statement, already posted on this list,
                  should of course take precedence over the following, which would be my
                  personal response to Zeba's comments.

                  I think it is true to say that Mt/Lk independence is indeed "assumed" in most
                  literature on Q. I am aware that the implausibility of what Luke is required
                  to have done with Matthew on the assumption that he depended on Mt has also
                  been "argued" by proponents of Q. Nevertheless this argument, which is quite
                  essential as justification of the existence of Q, is almost entirely absent
                  from some major works on Q. I suspect that the reticence to exhibit this
                  argument in much of the literature betrays an awareness of its intrinsic
                  weakness. I spent a whole morning recently reading through one of the major,
                  monograph-size studies on Q by John Kloppenborg. My specific reason for
                  engaging in this exercise was to see if I could find anything resembling a
                  good argument against Luke's use of Matthew, that would justify positing the
                  existence of Q. I didn't find even a trace of such an argument, which made me
                  feel that I had but wasted precious time. I see very little value in learning
                  a whole lot about the nature, extent, history, and character of Q before I
                  have become persuaded of the need to posit its existence. And I would need a
                  lot more on that than I found in Kloppenborg's book. Prius est esse quam tale
                  esse.

                  Leonard Maluf

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Mark Goodacre
                  ... I agree with you that perhaps too often there is no engagement with the question of Matthew s and Luke s independence in books that are working on Q,
                  Message 8 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 17 Oct 2001, at 11:26, Maluflen@... wrote:

                    > Nevertheless
                    > this argument, which is quite essential as justification of the
                    > existence of Q, is almost entirely absent from some major works on Q.
                    > I suspect that the reticence to exhibit this argument in much of the
                    > literature betrays an awareness of its intrinsic weakness. I spent a
                    > whole morning recently reading through one of the major,
                    > monograph-size studies on Q by John Kloppenborg. My specific reason
                    > for engaging in this exercise was to see if I could find anything
                    > resembling a good argument against Luke's use of Matthew, that would
                    > justify positing the existence of Q. I didn't find even a trace of
                    > such an argument, which made me feel that I had but wasted precious
                    > time.

                    I agree with you that perhaps too often there is no engagement with
                    the question of Matthew's and Luke's independence in books that
                    are working on Q, though I'd doubt personally that this was
                    because of an "awareness of its intrinsic weakness"; I think it's
                    more that it's thought that the question has been dealt with
                    satisfactorily elsewhere in the literature. But among the many
                    honourable exceptions to this I'd count Kloppenborg, so I'm a bit
                    puzzled by your singling him out here. Are you thinking of
                    _Excavating Q_ or of _Formation_? _Excavating Q_ does have a
                    discussion of the Synoptic Problem and makes many interesting
                    points, though of course I disagree with it at several other points.

                    Mark
                    -----------------------------
                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                    Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                    University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
                    Birmingham B15 2TT
                    United Kingdom

                    http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                    Homepage
                    http://NTGateway.com
                    The New Testament Gateway

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Zeba Crook
                    ... Why is it that you ignored the two sources I named (Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Xity, Chapt 1, and Kloppenborg Verbin, Ex. Q, Chap 1)? Is it
                    Message 9 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Maluflen@... wrote:

                      > I think it is true to say that Mt/Lk independence is indeed "assumed" in most
                      > literature on Q. I am aware that the implausibility of what Luke is required
                      > to have done with Matthew on the assumption that he depended on Mt has also been
                      > "argued" by proponents of Q. Nevertheless this argument, which is quite
                      > essential as justification of the existence of Q, is almost entirely absent
                      > from some major works on Q. I suspect that the reticence to exhibit this
                      > argument in much of the literature betrays an awareness of its intrinsic
                      > weakness. I spent a whole morning recently reading through one of the major,
                      > monograph-size studies on Q by John Kloppenborg. My specific reason for
                      > engaging in this exercise was to see if I could find anything resembling a
                      > good argument against Luke's use of Matthew, that would justify positing the
                      > existence of Q. I didn't find even a trace of such an argument, which made me
                      > feel that I had but wasted precious time. I see very little value in learning
                      > a whole lot about the nature, extent, history, and character of Q before I
                      > have become persuaded of the need to posit its existence. And I would need a
                      > lot more on that than I found in Kloppenborg's book. Prius est esse quam tale
                      > esse.

                      Why is it that you ignored the two sources I named (Tuckett, Q and the History of
                      Early Xity, Chapt 1, and Kloppenborg Verbin, Ex. Q, Chap 1)? Is it because they
                      both do exactly the opposite of what you claim?

                      It is exactly as Mark presented: can you really expect every supporter of the 2DH
                      to go through the evidence over and over when others have done so already and to
                      their satisfaction? I for one accept (nay, even presuppose!) many hypotheses
                      about the world we live, say having to do with the way light or sound travels, but
                      I must admit, to my shame, that I have not done the work myself. It is simply
                      ridiculous argumentation to search for books which presuppose the 2DH but do not
                      do all the work themselves.

                      Zeb

                      ***

                      Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand)
                      University of St. Michael's College
                      Faculty of Theology
                      81 St. Mary Street
                      Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                      M5S 1J4

                      (416) 964-8629
                      http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~kquinn/
                      (please note new web page address)



                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      In a message dated 10/17/2001 1:19:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, zeba.crook@utoronto.ca writes:
                      Message 10 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 10/17/2001 1:19:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                        zeba.crook@... writes:

                        << Why is it that you ignored the two sources I named (Tuckett, Q and the
                        History of Early Xity, Chapt 1, and Kloppenborg Verbin, Ex. Q, Chap 1)? Is
                        it because they both do exactly the opposite of what you claim?>>

                        No. It's because I haven't recently looked at those works. I am delighted to
                        be reminded, however, of where to find Kloppenborg's treatment of this issue,
                        because it is really the only issue on Q that interests me at the moment.
                        Actually, I think the work you refer to as Ex. Q was the one Chris Matthews
                        recently mentioned to me in passing as making the argument for the
                        implausibly of Luke having known and used Matthew. And I evidently picked up
                        the wrong book (perhaps "Formation..") which I found disappointingly sparse -
                        not to say totally deficient - in arguing the point.

                        <<It is exactly as Mark presented: can you really expect every supporter of
                        the 2DH to go through the evidence over and over when others have done so
                        already and to their satisfaction?>>

                        Hmm.. There really is no such thing as "evidence," is there, for the position
                        that Luke did not know Matthew (I could stop here, but will continue) that is
                        not totally dependent on theories about how a later author would likely have
                        used an earlier source. It is these theories that I find both eminently
                        challengeable and quite disturbingly subjective.

                        In contrast, I would argue that there is much evidence -- which is complex,
                        cumulative, but absolutely compelling -- of Luke's dependence on Matthew.
                        Some of this evidence is laid out, e.g., in Goulder's two-volume work: Luke,
                        a New Paradigm, and his argument is weaker than it could be, in my view,
                        because of his assumption that Luke was using Mark as well as Matthew, since
                        this results in a Luke who inexplicably uses two different documents in
                        almost irreconcilably different ways. In this regard, the 2 GH has an
                        advantage over the FH as an effective dispenser with Q.

                        << It is simply ridiculous argumentation to search for books which
                        presuppose the 2DH but do not do all the work themselves.>>

                        So now you know that I am absolved of this accusation, as I was searching for
                        exactly the opposite. Thanks for giving me a heads up on chapter 1 of
                        Excavating Q. By the way, the other book I came across when combing our
                        library for arguments in favor of the existence of Q was the so-called
                        "Critical Text of..", which I found equally unenlightening in proposito, even
                        in its introductory chapters.

                        Leonard Maluf

                        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.