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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A Widely-Accepted Standard?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
      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 2 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
        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 3 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
          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 4 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
            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 5 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
              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 6 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
                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 7 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
                  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.