[Synoptic-L] Stanton's brilliant list of good arguments (was: Fatigue)
- At 1:14 AM on Thursday, April 11, Emmanuel Fritsch posted:
>>In its initiation book, "Gospel truth", Graham Stanton givesa short but brilliant list of good arguments for Q, against FG.
He says that Q is a good hypothesis, even if its arguments are
not as solid as those for Marcan priority. But he forgot to
give these arguument for Marcan priority (or they have been
canceled in the french edition).
If what I read in the french edition is the same in the original,
then this could be seen as a one more example of Marcan priority
I didn't find Stanton's arguments for Q against Farrer all that brilliant.
I think Stanton exhibits not only a "Marcan priority bias", but also a 2DH
bias. If you're interested, Stanton's arguments for Marcan priority against
Griesbach may be found in _A Gospel for a New People_ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1992) 28-32. I doubt proponents of the Griesbach hypothesis will be much
impressed by them. But forgive me if I use your post as a springboard for
responding to Stanton's case against the Farrer hypothesis.
Mostly, Stanton rehearses three of the usual "four O's"; that is, the
arguments against Farrer from Order, Omission, and Originality (he skips
Overlap). Mark Goodacre has addressed all of these in _The Case Against Q_,
and Mark Matson has addressed the argument from order in detail in "Luke's
Rewriting of the Sermon on the Mount" (SBL Seminar Papers 2000, pp. 623-50;
also available on his homepage at:
http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/papers.htm). I'm not going
try to repeat all of their work here, but I'd like to respond to Stanton's
assertion that, "If Luke has also used Matthew, we would have expected him
to have modified his source in broadly similar ways. But this is by no
means the case."
What goes largely unnoticed, or unaccepted, by proponents of the 2DH is
that, if Luke has used Matthew as well as Mark, he *has* modified them in
broadly similar ways. While it's true that Luke has rearranged Matthew's
order in the double tradition material more than he has Mark's in the triple
tradition, the compositional methods he uses on each are largely the same.
I don't believe that the Farrer hypothesis needs to assume any compositional
procedures not also assumed on the 2DH.
Now I grant that Stanton is trying to be concise in _Gospel Truth_ and is
not attempting to answer every counter-argument. Still, he oversimplifies
when he notes what he considers are problematic assumptions of the Farrer
theory without disclosing that the 2DH makes very similar assumptions. For
example, when he describes Goulder's theory concerning the effects of Luke's
"block policy", he fails to mention that the block policy itself was
described by Streeter and is assumed on the 2DH as well. I'd also like to
take a look at the example Stanton gives in his presentation of the argument
from order and see if the evidence he provides really supports his
>>he [Goulder] has to concede that Luke has carefully separated the Marcanand non-Marcan parts of Matthew 24-25. The former are included in Luke 21,
the latter are isolated (by marking a copy of Matthew with a pen!) and
included in Luke chapters 12-13, 17, and, we may add, 19. This is a
tortuous explanation of Luke's methods, to say the least<< (Stanton, _Gospel
What Stanton doesn't mention, and may not have noticed, is that the three
blocks of "non-Marcan" material in Lk. 12-13, 17, and 19, all contain Marcan
material; that is, they are "Mark/Q overlaps" on the 2DH. These overlaps
are: Lk. 12.11-12/Mk. 13.11; Lk. 17.21, 23/Mk. 13.21; Lk. 17.31/Mk. 13.15;
Lk. 19.12-13/Mk.13.34. In keeping with his usual procedure (asumin the 2DH)
when faced with an overlap between his sources, Luke omits one and uses the
other. In these cases, he omits the versions found in Mk. 13. In effect,
Luke has removed material from Mk. 13 so that he can use parallel material
in Lk. 12-13, 17, and, we may add, 19. Maybe he even marked a copy of Mark
with a pen! But if proponents of the 2DH can imagine a Luke that carefully
compared his Marcan and non-Marcan sources, noted their overlaps, and then
"scratched out" one version of each, it can scarcely be used as an argument
against the Farrer theory that it assumes the same thing.
The Farrer theory does have to suppose that, after Luke had isolated the
Matthean additions to Mark by "scratching out" the Marcan parallels from
Mathhew, that Luke then took this material and arranged it in a new order.
But the actual procedures involved in doing this are pretty much the same as
those that are assumed on the 2DH, where Matthew rearranges Q in a new
order. The 2DH also has the additional hypothesis that, in the Mark/Q
overlaps, Matthew then closely conflated Mark and Q.
I have one further comment about the Mark/Q overlap in Mt. 25.14-15/Mk.
13.34/Lk. 19.12-13 and how it impacts the reconstruction of Luke's
non-Marcan source. On the 2DH, both Matthew and Luke seem to have
recognized the overlap. Each dealt with it in his usual way: Matthew
conflates Mark and Q, while Luke omits Mark's version and follows Q.
However, if we reconstruct Q to resemble Luke more than Matthew in wording
and order, it's a little difficult (at least for me) to see why Luke should
have thought that Mark and Q were telling the same story. They have very
little in common and would have been in completely different contexts.
Matthew has much more in common with Mark here, both in wording and context.
It would be much easier to imagine that Luke would be able to identify Mark
13.34 as an overlap with his non-Marcan source if we reconstruct that source
to resemble Matthew in wording and context.
Kenneth A. Olson
Graduate Teaching Assistant
University of Maryland
Department of History
2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
College Park, MD 20742-7315
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...