At 07:49 AM 9/1/2004 +0100, Ron Price wrote:
>Kloppenborg had written in NTS:
>>"Luke's supposed dependence on Mark is not any less hypothetical than Luke's
>>dependence on Q, merely because we have third-century manuscripts of Mark."
>Stephen Carlson wrote:
>> Rather than condemn Klopp.et al. for a strawman .....
> I think this is being too soft on him. An eminent scholar should not
>descend to making an exaggerated claim just because some of his opponents
>make exaggerated claims. In making the comparison between Q and the
>archetype of Mark, Kloppenborg evidently intended to try to demolish the
>argument that the hypothetical nature of Q should be counted as a factor
>against the 2ST. Kloppenborg's statement is misleading and we should see
OK, I've re-read Kloppenborg's statement in context. He is criticizing
a statement by Austin Farrer for not realizing that Luke's dependence
on Mark is a hypothesis too, as is the existence of Q. Kloppenborg's
criticism of A. Farrer still stands but it would have been analytically
neater and, in fact, less confusing if he had written instead "first-
century manuscripts of Mark" or even "have manuscripts of Mark." Thus,
I don't see Kloppenborg as logically fallacious or even intentionally
misleading, but it would be a fair criticism that his use of "third-
century" was less relevant than its pragmatic weight that detail would
normally imply to his readers.
I agree with Kloppenborg's point that a supposition of dependence should
also count as a hypothesis. I also feel that one shouldn't compare
hypothetical apples with hypothetical oranges. In other words, I don't
know how to balance off a hypothesis of dependence with a hypothetical
text. In mathematical terms, the comparison may only involve a partial
Fortunately, in the case of the FT vs. the 2ST, we don't have solve this
philosophical conundrum: the Farrer Theory has both fewer hypotheses of
dependence and fewer hypotheses of lost sources. For example, the FT
posits three hypotheses of dependence (Mk->Mt, Mk->Lk, Mt->Lk) versus
four (Mk->Mt, Mk->Lk, Q->Mt, and Q->Lk) for the 2ST. Also, the 2ST has
one additional hypothetical source (Q) that the FT lacks. Whether or
not one should also count the autographs of Matt., Mark, and Luke as
hypothetical entities, the effect applies equally to the FT and the
2ST and effectively cancels out.
> Perhaps the inclusion of such a dubious statement shows that he has been
>rattled by Goodacre's case against Q.
I don't know Kloppenborg well enough to conclude that (I've talked with
him only about a half-dozen times). In fact, he strikes me as one of
the most fair-minded supporters of the 2ST active today. I do, however,
acknowledge noticing that Kloppenborg more than once criticized various
logical errors people have made before conceding that Goodacre did not
in fact make those errors. It is not fully clear whether this helps
or hurts Goodacre overall, but I suspect the latter. The criticisms
are first and the disavowals come later, so the negative guilt-by-
association effect should be making a stronger impression on the reader.
I don't think that this subtle rhetorical effect is intentional, though.
In fact, I can see clear didactical reasons for quashing common mistakes
that non-specialists would make at the offset before getting into the
nuances. Because Kloppenborg is one of the best teachers in the field
(just look at the quality of his students), pedagogy, not some devious
sophistry, is what is most probably driving Kloppenborg.
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...