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

[Synoptic-L] Stanton's brilliant list of good arguments (was: Fatigue)

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    ... a 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
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 13, 2002
      At 1:14 AM on Thursday, April 11, Emmanuel Fritsch posted:

      >>In its initiation book, "Gospel truth", Graham Stanton gives
      a 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
      bias. <<


      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 Marcan
      and 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
      Truth_, 70)

      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.

      Best Wishes,



      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@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.