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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.