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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , May 12, 2004
    • 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 2 of 8 , May 12, 2004
      • 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 3 of 8 , May 13, 2004
        • 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 4 of 8 , May 13, 2004
          • 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 5 of 8 , May 14, 2004
            • 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 6 of 8 , May 14, 2004
              • 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 7 of 8 , May 14, 2004
                • 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.