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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: fatigue in the synoptics, second thoughts

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    *In a message dated 4/21/2002 12:33:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kaolson@mindspring.com writes:
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 22, 2002
      *In a message dated 4/21/2002 12:33:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      kaolson@... writes:
      << The fact that you can offer two different interpretations, each of which
      alone might explain the extant text, makes me think that in fact it's not
      quite clear what Matthew intends here, whereas it is clear what's intended
      in the
      parallel passage in Luke. That's the basis on which I'm claiming there is
      at least an apparent tension in Matthew's text here and an apparent case of
      fatigue.>>

      *And Leonard Maluf responded (4/21/02):
      Ken, do not the data here suggest first of all an explanation in terms of an
      unclear text of Matthew rendered clear secondarily by Luke through the
      addition of the reference to the blindfolding? I don't see why you would
      give
      relative priority here to a Matthean fatigue explanation, with Matthew's
      text
      as secondary, even if this would remain a theoretical possibility. Is it not
      a standard feature of secondary texts that they attempt to make clear a more
      obscure original text?

      *KO:
      Brian Wilson made a similar point a few years back. Couldn't apparent cases
      of fatigue be explained as inconcinnities in a text that a later writer
      tried to "fix"? For instance, some scribes seem to have attempted to fix
      the apparent tension in the introduction to Luke's feeding miracle by
      inserting TOPON ERHMON into Lk. 9.10. This raises once again the question
      of whether narrative-critical or source-critical explanations are to be the
      argument of first resort in cases of apparent fatigue.

      I should clarify here that I've been calling Matthew's omission of the
      blindfolding a case of "apparent" fatigue. By this I mean to suggest that I
      think it fits the current definition of fatigue. There seems to be an
      unstated assumption in "Fatigue in the Synoptics" that fatigue is the
      argument of first resort; i.e. that all cases that could be explained as
      fatigue ought to be explained as fatigue. By this standard, I think Matthew
      may be said to be "fatigued". What I'd like to see is a better-defined
      standard. Under what conditions can we move from saying "this could be
      fatigue" to "this probably is fatigue"? Here I think Goodacre's examples
      that include an argument that the change being attributed to the fatigued
      writer is characteristic of that writer are much stronger than those
      examples that do not. Also, those cases that contain an apparent
      inconcinnity in the text are much stronger than those that do not.

      [snipped]

      *KO:
      << The criterion of fatigue would seem to
      suggest that Luke preserves the more original reading regarding the
      blindfolding than Matthew (which, on the Farrer hypothesis, he does).

      *LM:
      Here I am totally confused. I thought that on the Farrer hypothesis Luke's
      "readings" could never be more original than, but are rather dependent on
      Matthew's. Have I missed something?

      *KO:
      On the Farrer hypothesis, either Matthew or Luke might preserve Mark better
      where all three overlap. In this case, Luke is following Mark and retains
      the blindfolding, which Matthew omits. Thus Luke has the "more original
      reading".

      Goodacre doesn't actually deal with the relationship between Matthew and
      Luke in the triple tradition in "Fatigue in the Synoptics". I'm taking his
      comment that "if the Two Source Theory is correct, one will expect to see
      not only Luke but also Matthew showing signs of fatigue in double tradition
      material" and trying to apply it to the triple tradition. It would seem
      that if Goodacre is correct that Luke and Matthew ought to show alternating
      primitivity in the double tradition if they are using a common source, then
      they ought to show alternating primitivity in the triple tradition where, on
      the Farrer theory, they are using a common source.

      Best Wishes,

      Ken

      kaolson@...

      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.