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

[Synoptic-L] Editorial Fatigue in Matthew's double tradition

Expand Messages
  • Joseph Weaks
    Mark Goodacre has consistently done a fine job of utilizing Editorial Fatigue as evidence in the Synoptic Problem. In his article on the subject he concludes:
    Message 1 of 8 , May 11 10:49 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark Goodacre has consistently done a fine job of utilizing Editorial
      Fatigue as evidence in the Synoptic Problem. In his article on the
      subject he concludes:

      "...if the Two Source Theory is correct, one will expect to see not
      only Luke but also Matthew showing signs of [editorial] fatigue in
      double tradition material. Those who believe in the existence of Q will
      have to look for their own examples of editorial fatigue in Matthew's
      versions of double tradition material. I have looked for examples and
      cannot find any."
      (Cf. "Fatigue in the Synoptics," http://ntgateway.com/Q/fatigue.htm)

      I'm curious, Mark and others, has there been any progress on this
      subject? What are the best candidates to date of possible places where
      Matthew became docile in his reproduction of Q (or Luke)? I prefer the
      phrase Docile Reproduction as more inclusive of the phenomenon, since
      often the issue arises when a copyist omits information at the
      beginning not by intentionally rewriting but by mistake, such as Jesus
      family and the missing house in Matthew, or the missing house in Luke's
      healing of the paralytic.

      Cheers,
      Joe Weaks

      **************************************************************
      Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
      Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
      Leander Keck Fellow of NT Studies, Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
      j.weaks@...
      **************************************************************


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Joseph Weaks
      In a Novum Testamentum article, Is it Possible to Dispense with Q? (2003 no 4), Paul Foster refutes Goodacre s recent work and argues that Matthew lapses
      Message 2 of 8 , May 12 3:16 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        In a Novum Testamentum article, 'Is it Possible to Dispense with Q?'
        (2003 no 4), Paul Foster refutes Goodacre's recent work and argues that
        Matthew lapses into 'Kingdom of God' rather than his preferred 'Kingdom
        of Heaven' terminology at Matt 12.28, which is a double tradition (or
        Q) passage. See in particular pages 328-332.

        Of course, every gospel scholar knows that "Matthew has a consistent
        tendency to replace" KoG with KoH. (330).
        In short, Foster argues that Matthew's oops in not changing to KoH in
        21.31 is an example of fatigue in double tradition. Foster was wise to
        anticipate some objections to your arguments. I did not find them
        convincing.

        As he anticipated, I would not consider this issue under the category
        of "Editor Fatigue"/"Docile Reproduction" which focuses on anomalies
        within the narrative structure of a pericope. Firstly, KoG would need
        to be changed earlier in the pericope to apply as an example of Docile
        Reproduction. Foster argues that the lack of a previous use of the
        phrase indicating a shift in the narrative structure "is not at all
        damaging to the case at hand. Matthew’s alteration to KoH is so
        thoroughgoing that this cannot be doubted to be general Matthean
        redactional policy." (331) But now we've gone beyond "Docile
        Reproduction"/"Editorial Fatigue" which is primarily concerned with
        redactionally and theologically neutral, simplistic narrative features
        that provide evidence of directional dependence. Things like "They were
        with a crowd? or no? in a boat? or no? the country side, or a town?
        etc." The larger Matthean KoG -> KoH is something quite different.
        We have uniquely Matthean places where he slips or chooses not to make
        the alteration:

        Matt. 21:31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said,
        “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors
        and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.

        Matt. 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away
        from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom.

        And uniquely Matthean places where he does use KoH:

        Matt. 13:24 He put before them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven
        may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field..."

        There simply are a few (4) places where he didn't alter his source for
        Jesus' message (whether it be kerygma, Mark, Luke, Q, stuff he made up,
        whatever) into speech regarding KoH. It is precisely the anomalies of
        fatigue that DON'T have associated redactional and theological themes
        that grant unbiased evidence towards directional dependency--especially
        those that are part of a narrative structure.
        In short, Mat's use of KoG in 12.28 gives absolutely no evidence
        toward the nature or direction of his copying this pericope. It is
        something else; we could call it Theological Redactional Fatigue,
        perhaps.
        Elsewhere in the article, Foster made some good (and stronger) points
        regarding Goodacre's work that I hope to see Mark respond to at some
        point. But, as Foster accuses Goodacre, he also overstates his case in
        the summary: "Applying Goodacre’s own criterion, there is a clear case
        [in Mat 12.28] where Matthew has fatigued by deviating from his
        redactional policy, and the simplest explanation is that this is due to
        mechanically following source material that he shares with Luke." (332)
        If this is the clearest case of Editorial Fatigue in Mat among Double
        Tradition texts, then my hopes for Q are in jeapordy (which would be a
        shame because it sure would threaten the value of a good many books in
        my library).

        Surely we can do better?
        Joe

        **************************************************************
        Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
        Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
        Leander Keck Fellow of NT Studies, Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
        j.weaks@...
        **************************************************************


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Mark Goodacre
        Joe, Thanks for bringing up Foster s attempted counter to my Fatigue argument. I agree with your remarks in response. Here is what I wrote to Paul after he
        Message 3 of 8 , May 12 1:01 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Joe,

          Thanks for bringing up Foster's attempted counter to my "Fatigue"
          argument. I agree with your remarks in response. Here is what I
          wrote to Paul after he had kindly sent me a pre-publication draft of
          his article:

          > Your example of Matthaean
          > fatigue in double tradition material doesn't really work on my definition,
          > does it, in that Matthew does not begin the passage with a "kingdom of
          > heaven" that then lapses into "kingdom of God"? This is unlike even your
          > Matthew // Mark example which goes from kgm of heaven to kgm of God. So
          > it seems a weak example to me. You go on to deal with this point on p.
          > 24, which, it seems to me, suggests that you are using the term "editorial
          > fatigue" differently from the way I am. I am not talking about the
          > inadvertent agreement with a source usage in alleged deviations from
          > standard redactional practices. Rather, I am discussing a specific
          > procedure whereby an evangelist's inadvertence happens in a sequence of
          > uncharacteristic material agreeing with a source that comes not long after
          > characteristic material disagreeing with a source.
          >
          > But you will ask why does Matthew use "God" here? Well, he's just
          > said "If I by the Spirit of *God* cast out demons . . .", which
          > required "therefore the kingdom of *God* has come upon you". Would
          > it work the same with "heaven" here? I don't think so. Further, on your
          > own theory Matthew is not "mechanically following source material" here
          > because he has changed "finger" to "Spirit". This, it seems to me, limits
          > further the force of your argument.

          One of these days I might get round to writing a proper answer to
          Foster's critique, but I've got too caught up with other things in
          the interim to have been able to find time. I've sketched some
          answers on my blog by way of answer at:

          http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2003/11/fosters-novt-article.html
          http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2004/01/carlson-review-of-foster.html
          http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2004/01/carlsons-review-of-foster-part-3.html

          See too the reviews by Stephen Carlso to which these blog entries
          point. There may be others too.

          All best
          Mark
          -----------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Graduate Institute for Theology & Religion
          Dept of Theology
          University of Birmingham
          Elmfield House, Bristol Road tel.+44 121 414 7512
          Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

          http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
          http://NTGateway.com


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Ken Olson
          ... (2003 no 4), Paul Foster refutes Goodacre s recent work... [much snipped]. Elsewhere in the article, Foster made some good (and stronger) points regarding
          Message 4 of 8 , May 13 8:31 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            On May 12, Joseph Weaks posted:

            >>In a Novum Testamentum article, 'Is it Possible to Dispense with Q?'
            (2003 no 4), Paul Foster refutes Goodacre's recent work...
            [much snipped].
            Elsewhere in the article, Foster made some good (and stronger) points
            regarding Goodacre's work that I hope to see Mark respond to at some
            point.<<

            Joseph,

            I'm a little confused by the word "refutes" in your first sentence. It
            would seem to suggest that you were convinced by Foster's arguments against
            Mark Goodacre, which isn't the impression I gathered from the rest of what
            you wrote. Mark has already given his response on the issue of editorial
            fatigue and cited some other places where he and Stephen Carlson had
            responded to Foster. I've been over Foster's paper fairly thoroughly and
            did not find it particularly well thought out. Parenthetically, I think John
            Kloppenborg does a much better job of responding to Goodacre in "On
            Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew," NTS 49
            (2003) 210-236, though I do not find his criticisms unanswerable. I was
            particularly unimpressed by Foster's representation of the way The Gospel of
            Thomas affects Farrer's and Goodacre's arguments about the genre of Q, by
            his appeal to the authority of Kloppenborg on Q's genre and Downing on
            ancient compositional procedures (I find JSKV's arguments questionable and
            Downing's dead wrong), and by the way he takes the mere existence of
            alternative possibilies on the Minor Agreements and the relative order in
            which Luke got hold of his sources as refuting Goodacre's arguments as to
            what is actually probable. Could you spell out a few of what you thought
            were Foster's good (and stronger) points?

            Best Wishes,

            Ken

            kaolson@...



            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Joseph Weaks
            ... Ken, I may have been holding the keyboard at a strange angle, but I think you simply were unable to read my handwriting. Yes, of course I was quite clear
            Message 5 of 8 , May 13 6:44 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              On May 13, 2004, at 10:31 AM, Ken Olson wrote:
              > On May 12, Joseph Weaks posted:
              >>> In a Novum Testamentum article, 'Is it Possible to Dispense with Q?'
              >> (2003 no 4), Paul Foster re[ ]ut[ ]s Goodacre's recent work...
              >> [much snipped].
              >> Elsewhere in the article, Foster made some good (and stronger) points
              >> regarding Goodacre's work that I hope to see Mark respond to at some
              >> point.<<
              >
              > Joseph,
              > I'm a little confused by the word "refutes" in your first sentence. It
              > would seem to suggest that you were convinced by Foster's arguments
              > against
              > Mark Goodacre, which isn't the impression I gathered from the rest of
              > what
              > you wrote.

              Ken,
              I may have been holding the keyboard at a strange angle, but I think
              you simply were unable to read my handwriting. Yes, of course I was
              quite clear from the email that I was unconvinced by Foster's argument.
              I found nothing in his paper that was unanswerable, by even me. Perhaps
              I was just being kind. The only reason I brought up the article was
              because it was brought to my attention in private after my initial
              post. I would be happy to raise some of Foster's stronger points, under
              a different topic heading and on another day, as I have just arrived
              home from day one of my doctoral qualifying exams and my brain is a bit
              mushy at the moment.

              Speaking of which, GUESS what question I got... something like:

              "While the Two-Source Hypothesis enjoys a consensus amount NT scholars,
              is it possible that we find ourselves in a state of reevaluation? Give
              the evidence in support of the the 2SH with examples and then describe
              the alternatives which present the best challenge (or do I mean
              refutation ;) Finally, in your evaluation, what are your assessments
              for the future in the field of the synoptic problem?"

              Well, it was worded betters... as I said... mush. However I was
              delighted to see the question among the others. In the closing section,
              Mark's name came up more than once, as did he good colleague Dr.
              Parker. Heck, if I could've remembered the page number, I probably
              should've put a portion in quotes. hehe

              Now, I hope I did equally as well in the question where I compared the
              literary genres of Lucian's Hermas and Shepherd of Demonax.

              Cheers,
              Joe
              **************************************************************
              Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
              Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
              Leander Keck Fellow of NT Studies, Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
              j.weaks@...
              **************************************************************


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              ... I hope you will display remarkable prescience by announcing that the Two Gospel Hypothesis will be the preferred Synoptic theory of the future. Leonard
              Message 6 of 8 , May 14 5:53 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 5/13/2004 9:44:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, j.weaks@... writes:

                > Finally, in your evaluation, what are your assessments
                > for the future in the field of the synoptic problem?"

                I hope you will display remarkable prescience by announcing that the Two Gospel Hypothesis will be the preferred Synoptic theory of the future.

                Leonard Maluf
                Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                Weston, MA

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Tim Reynolds
                ... Some list members are going to be embarrassed at the eventual recognition that the salient issue is not transmission direction but transmission mode. For
                Message 7 of 8 , May 14 2:35 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  on 5/14/04 5:53 AM, Maluflen@... at Maluflen@... wrote:

                  > In a message dated 5/13/2004 9:44:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, j.weaks@...
                  > writes:
                  >
                  >> Finally, in your evaluation, what are your assessments
                  >> for the future in the field of the synoptic problem?"
                  >
                  > I hope you will display remarkable prescience by announcing that the Two
                  > Gospel Hypothesis will be the preferred Synoptic theory of the future.
                  >
                  > Leonard Maluf
                  > Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                  > Weston, MA
                  >
                  > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...



                  Some list members are going to be embarrassed at the eventual recognition
                  that the salient issue is not transmission direction but transmission mode.
                  For newbies, v. "auditory piracy", Archives.

                  Tim Reynolds
                  Long Beach CA


                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Joseph Weaks
                  ... You must not be familiar with D. C. Parker s work, in order to see where I was heading. The TGH received two sentences in my answer. But you should ve
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 14 6:00 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On May 14, 2004, at 7:53 AM, Maluflen@... wrote:
                    > In a message dated 5/13/2004 9:44:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                    > j.weaks@... writes:
                    >> Finally, in your evaluation, what are your assessments
                    >> for the future in the field of the synoptic problem?"
                    >
                    > I hope you will display remarkable prescience by announcing that the
                    > Two Gospel Hypothesis will be the preferred Synoptic theory of the
                    > future.

                    You must not be familiar with D. C. Parker's work, in order to see
                    where I was heading. The TGH received two sentences in my answer.

                    But you should've heard my question on Job today... great God almighty
                    I should've just walked away and cut my losses.

                    Cheers,
                    Joe


                    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.