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

Fatigue, was Re: [Synoptic-L] "Desert" of Bethsaida

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... Goodacre s comments makes the most sense in its dialectal context: the comparison of the Farrer theory with the Two Source Theory. It is seems possible
    Message 1 of 40 , Apr 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:38 AM 4/7/2002 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
      >In a message dated 4/5/2002 9:27:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      >M.S.Goodacre@... writes:
      > (2) I felt when
      > writing the piece that the best kind of answer would be one that was
      > able to provide strong counter-examples. Again, I've not been
      > convinced by those given. >>
      >
      >I don't think I've ever tried to give a counter example (I hope I'm
      >remembering correctly here!) and I think the idea that there ought to be
      >such, given an alternative source hypothesis, may be one of Goodacre's
      >weakest methodological assumptions.

      Goodacre's comments makes the most sense in its dialectal context:
      the comparison of the Farrer theory with the Two Source Theory.

      It is seems possible that a Two-Sourcer may try to deflect the
      force of Goodacre's argument by stating that perhaps the reason
      that there is no fatigue of Matthew with respect to Q (as evidenced
      in Luke) is that Matthew was a much more careful editor than
      Luke. This is not so, however, because Goodacre produced several
      good examples of Matthean fatigue in using Mark. Why should
      Matthew all of a sudden get more careful with Q? Genre? However,
      Luke shows fatigue in both the triple and double traditions, so
      genre does not appear to be such a compelling factor as far as
      Luke's fatigue is concerned.

      The only way out for the Two-Source Theory without resorting to
      those ad-hoc explanations is to find examples of Matthew's fatigue
      in the double tradition. Mutual fatigue is indicative of a common
      source, i.e. Q. I haven't looked for examples of Matthew's fatigue
      in the double tradition, and no one else has found any either.
      Goodacre has thrown down the gauntlet, and the most disappointing
      thing about his article is that no one has picked it up yet.

      What about the Griesbach Hypothesis? I suppose one could resort
      to the position that fatigue does not really exist and all of
      Goodacre's examples can be explained away. This seems to be
      your position, Leonard. The problem I have with it is that
      fatigue is only probative directional indicator that I'm aware
      of, and I've been looking for a probative directional indicator
      for a long time. If fatigue is not probative of indicating
      the direction of dependence, then I'm afraid that no indicator
      is probative. The big scandal behind synoptic source criticism
      is that critics, particularly those skeptical of the 2ST, spend
      most of their time spinning "Just-So-Stories" for why the gospels
      just has to come out the way they did on their favorite source
      theory, rather than researching and developing the analytical
      tools for deciding the question. Goodacre's fatigue, which
      requires not only a narrative tension, but corroboration in the
      evangelist's own characteristic expressions, is precisely the
      kind of tool that is so desperately needed in synoptic source
      criticism.

      If you don't like fatigue as an argument--fine, give me a better
      tool than fatigue. Otherwise, we should attempt to the use the
      best tools that are available. On the Griesbach hypothesis, you
      could argue that Mark shows even better examples of fatigue than
      Goodacre's examples in the opposite direction. Or you can propose
      a better tool. For me, however, it does not seem productive to
      denigrate possibly the only analytical tool of any worth without
      making the synpotic source criticism an impossible enterprise.

      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


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • David Inglis
      ... general ... answers ... itself ... Stephen, I m not sure what weight you are applying to the 2ST. An assured result in much of present day gospel
      Message 40 of 40 , Apr 14, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephen Carlson wrote:
        > At 06:00 PM 4/10/2002 -0700, David Inglis wrote:
        > >In message 8278 I wrote:
        > >> 1. Just what *are* the assured results of the Synoptic Problem?
        > >> 2. What evidence would you accept as turning Matthean/Markan/Lukan
        > >priority into an assured result?
        > >>
        > >> I have to say that unless these two questions can be answered to
        general
        > >satisfaction (I'm cynical enough to believe that there will not be
        answers
        > >that everyone agrees to), then what hope is that the Synoptic Problem
        itself
        > >will ever be solved?
        >
        > I think it all depends on what you mean by "assured results"?
        >
        > A pratical definition of an "assured result" is a conclusion
        > that it sowidely accepted that a scholar is no longer expected
        > to footnote an authority for it. By this standard, the 2ST is
        > an assured result in much of present day gospel scholarship.
        > Who today bothers to footnote Wernle or Streeter for Markan
        > priority? Can you imagine getting marking down on a paper
        > for failing to cite Copernicus when you mentioned that the
        > earth goes around the sun?

        Stephen,

        I'm not sure what weight you are applying to the 2ST. "An assured result in
        much of present day gospel scholarship" falls short of simply being "An
        assured result." Quite clearly, the many and varied postings to this list
        show that there are still a number of valid arguments against the 2ST, and
        so although it may well be the majority position, I don't believe that it
        can yet be called an "assured result", at least not in the way Bob Waltz
        defines the term.
        >
        > If an assured result is one that is "beyond a reasonable
        > doubt", the standard we send people to prison in the U.S.,
        > then I would say that the existence of the synoptic problem
        > qualifies. It is beyond reasonable doubt that the extensive
        > verbatim agreements indicate that there is some kind of a
        > literary relationship among the synoptics.

        Absolutely. The existence of some kind of literary relationship among the
        synoptics can be termed an "assured result." I just don't believe that any
        solution (or even a partial solution, such as a particular priority) is
        currently an "assured result". Also, as I have yet to see anyone answering
        my second question: "What evidence would you accept as turning
        Matthean/Markan/Lukan priority into an assured result?", I'm not convinced
        that it is possible given the current evidence.

        Dave Inglis
        david@...
        3538 O'Connor Drive
        Lafayette, CA, USA




        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.