Re: [Synoptic-L] Matthew's additions to Mark
- Mark Goodacre wrote:
>(1) The Farrer Theorist's appeal to Occam's Razor is not an appeal toMark,
>a philosophical preference for "simple" over "complex".
Yes, I realize that you haven't got such a simplistic view of Occam's
> Rather, itOn the surface this statement sounds exemplary. Perhaps it is so if
>is to point out that if one can make good sense of the double
>tradition without appealing to an additional, hypothetical entity,
>then one should avoid doing so.
it's interpreted correctly.
The problem I see is one of boundaries. There is an analogy here with
the problem of the minor agreements. You have rightly complained about
2ST advocates placing the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke in a
separate category from the major agreements, thus obfuscating the
evidence for Luke's use of Matthew. Likewise your statement above *can*
lead to obfuscation. For hidden inside it is the assumption that the
category "double tradition" is unambiguous, can be treated as a unity,
and is the correct category for considering the underlying Matthew/Luke
similarities. Should we consider sayings and narrative as separate
categories (at least until there is evidence to merge them)? Should we
consider pericopae written in distinctly Matthean style as in a separate
category from those which look un-Matthean? Should we for an alternative
viewpoint look back to the time before Luke had been published and
concentrate on identifying Matthew's sources? (Anyone arguing for a
written sayings source behind Matthew in this last scenario would arrive
at something notably different from Q.)
>(2) I've sometimes wondered myself why it is that Matthew seems ableThanks. It's nice to have some support for my observation even if my
>to provide so much interesting extra sayings material and relatively
>little interesting extra narrative material .....
"early" is replaced by your more cautious "interesting"!
> ..... is there any other evidence in earlyTrue. But the "much stronger on M+Q" could also be explained by the
>Christianity for the communication of sayings material that overlaps
>with what we find in Matthew's additions to Mark (more traditionally
>Q+M)? Indeed there is -- the Epistle of James and the Gospel of
>Thomas are both much stronger on M+Q than they are on L material.
>Perhaps they, like Matthew, were accessing similar traditions. As
>with Matthew, there is no division between Q+M.
greater influence of the most popular gospel, i.e. Matthew.
> Where we haveWhere we (to copy your polite terminology!) have allowed ourselves to
>allowed ourselves to be misled has been in using Lucan parallels to
>Matthew's non-Marcan material as a means of accessing and
>reconstructing a discreet written source.
be misled has been in assuming an either/or solution to the origin of
the very diverse double tradition material.
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...