Gospel priority

[DCHindley]

Ken,

I'm afraid I will have to decline to continue this discussion.

Not sure I agree with the direction the board seems to be going (more angry replies and all that goes with that).

I have noticed that you have recently soured in your opinion of me, and maybe pressed one of your buttons. I guess I am what I am. If you like, I can refrain myself from participating in any threads where you have posted the OP.

The intensity level of posts about Synoptic Problem, especially Q, is why I have never liked the tenor of Synoptic studies.

It is only approached by the rancor in debates over the origins/writers of the DSS.

I am going to retire for a bit, as I am super stressed at work.

For lurkers, I am open to off-list exchanges, as always, if anyone is interested in why I have come to the conclusion that some (not all) academics have built houses of cards.

PS: Ken, I will be reading up on the Synoptic Problem from the books you recommended, if only for my own edification, not to "refute" anything. You see, I am all for learning something ...

Dave H

[Ken Olson]

Ken,

I'm afraid I will have to decline to continue this discussion.

Not sure I agree with the direction the board seems to be going (more angry replies and all that goes with that).

I have noticed that you have recently soured in your opinion of me, and maybe pressed one of your buttons. I guess I am what I am. If you like, I can refrain myself from participating in any threads where you have posted the OP.

The intensity level of posts about Synoptic Problem, especially Q, is why I have never liked the tenor of Synoptic studies.

It is only approached by the rancor in debates over the origins/writers of the DSS.

I am going to retire for a bit, as I am super stressed at work.

For lurkers, I am open to off-list exchanges, as always, if anyone is interested in why I have come to the conclusion that some (not all) academics have built houses of cards.

PS: Ken, I will be reading up on the Synoptic Problem from the books you recommended, if only for my own edification, not to "refute" anything. You see, I am all for learning something ...

Dave H

David,

I'm sorry if I sounded rancorous, but it did seem to me that you were beginning with the assumption that the Farrer theory, which I hold to be the most likely solution to the synoptic problem yet, is wrong and that the people who hold it, including the late Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre, and, of course, me, do not have rational reasons for what we believe, but that you could explain how we came to hold the theory we do for irrational reasons. That is, our thinking is wrong, but you could explain how we came to our wrong conclusions because of psychological and sociological reasons.

Do you understand how that sounds? Maybe not rancorous, but perhaps patronizing. If you think I misrepresented what you were saying, please tell me how, and I will try to do better.

I have spent a great deal of time studying the synoptic problem, as of course have Goulder and Goodacre. I have both studied their published work and spent many hours talking about the synoptic problem with them.

Beginning a discussion by claiming someone else's theory is wrong, but not be willing first to discuss whether it is indeed wrong, and offering to explain why other people hold their wrong theory, is probably not a good way to begin a genial discussion.

We've been conversing about the synoptic problem and related things (like the historical Jesus) for about a quarter century now, usually genially. I was actually surprised that you would begin by dismissing the theory I (and Goulder and Goodacre) hold.

I am not at all asking you to avoid threads I start. I am asking you to be prepared to back up the claims you make with reasonable arguments and not expect me to accept that my position is wrong based on your word alone. I think that is basic to having a discussion forum where the purpose is, purportedly, to get to the truth of things (though I could be wrong - I suppose there might be as many purposes as there are members, or more).

Best wishes,

Ken

P.S. I am sorry to hear you are under a lot of stress at work, but glad to hear that you will be reading the books I mentioned. Perhaps you will even be persuaded by them, though perhaps not. Goodacre's Way The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze is an easy introduction, but it is the first 128 pages of Goulder's Luke: A New Paradigm that make the fundamental argument for Luke's use of Matthew and dispensing with Q.

[Peter Kirby]

Ken,

I'm afraid I will have to decline to continue this discussion.

Not sure I agree with the direction the board seems to be going (more angry replies and all that goes with that).

I have noticed that you have recently soured in your opinion of me, and maybe pressed one of your buttons. I guess I am what I am. If you like, I can refrain myself from participating in any threads where you have posted the OP.

The intensity level of posts about Synoptic Problem, especially Q, is why I have never liked the tenor of Synoptic studies.

It is only approached by the rancor in debates over the origins/writers of the DSS.

I am going to retire for a bit, as I am super stressed at work.

For lurkers, I am open to off-list exchanges, as always, if anyone is interested in why I have come to the conclusion that some (not all) academics have built houses of cards.

PS: Ken, I will be reading up on the Synoptic Problem from the books you recommended, if only for my own edification, not to "refute" anything. You see, I am all for learning something ...

Dave H

I understand and sympathize completely here. I am making improvements to clean up the discussion. I hope that you come back from the break that you're taking refreshed.

For instance, I have suspended one user for a week for his posting.

I also took your suggestion to reverse a (now temporary) ban.

I am currently looking for help with moderation on the forum.

I have always been impressed with your posts here, DCH.

[DCHindley]

Ken,

I'm afraid I will have to decline to continue this discussion.
...
The intensity level of posts about Synoptic Problem, especially Q, is why I have never liked the tenor of Synoptic studies.

PS: Ken, I will be reading up on the Synoptic Problem from the books you recommended, if only for my own edification, not to "refute" anything. You see, I am all for learning something ...

David,

I'm sorry if I sounded rancorous, but it did seem to me that you were beginning with the assumption that the Farrer theory, which I hold to be the most likely solution to the synoptic problem yet, is wrong and that the people who hold it, including the late Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre, and, of course, me, do not have rational reasons for what we believe, but that you could explain how we came to hold the theory we do for irrational reasons. That is, our thinking is wrong, but you could explain how we came to our wrong conclusions because of psychological and sociological reasons.
...

Best wishes,

Ken

Hi Ken, I now call our exchange "the Great Kerfuffle," which is a humorous way of saying "we may have made a mountain out of a molehill." My apologies for causing you offense.

I was not suggesting that "Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre, and, of course, [you], do not have rational reasons for what [you] believe ... that ... [you] came to hold the theory [you] do for irrational reasons."

I don't think I used the word "irrational" but I could be wrong. The ways that individuals respond to dissonance can be compared to defense mechanisms in Freudian psychology. They are rationalization processes, that's all, not meant to suggest that those who employ them are being irrational. People are being very rational when they do it. Some may be meant to hold back a perceived threat, while same processes can actually also drive the integration of new research into the old and allow progress occur. It has developed as a mental process as a way to defend, adapt and overcome evolutionary challenges. Like they say in sports: "Sometimes the best defense is a good offense."

P.S. I am ... glad to hear that you will be reading the books I mentioned. Perhaps you will even be persuaded by them, though perhaps not. Goodacre's Way The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze is an easy introduction, but it is the first 128 pages of Goulder's Luke: A New Paradigm that make the fundamental argument for Luke's use of Matthew and dispensing with Q.

Egad! Your favorite writer's book has a bigger introduction (128 pages) than my favorite book's introduction (a mere 40). I take that as humor, so we *can* introduce a little humor into these discussions again.

Besides the usual assortment of Q related research by Kloppenborg, whose works I regard quite highly, including his later ones such as Excavating Q [community], and the usual assortment of Q synopses in Greek, I only have one or two of Goodacre's articles saved.

He speaks of E P Sanders very highly as an early influence, so I am pretty sure he had looked at the issue very closely. IIRC, Sanders was talking about trends commonly thought to indicate direction of movement of tradition. Those "general trends" based as they were on Bultman's "Form Criticism," he thought were proven to be too inaccurate to be useful. Now I can see that on examination of specified cases, maybe a direction can be safely assumed. I think I admitted that their [er, your] non-Q explanation could work. My sin, I hope, was over generalizing a psychological cause for what I perceived as hyper vigilance by some, in a way that caused you offense. Again, my humble apologies. I am a bad person, baaad ...

Since the Synoptic problem, with all the Q associations, is something I have long put off, maybe now is the time to get back on it. Usually I read a lot, digest it, test some ideas out to confirm what has been asserted, before I would even think of commenting, so - perhaps thankfully - there will be no posts on this anytime soon. <whew!>

DCH

[Ken Olson]

David,

I'm sorry if I sounded rancorous, but it did seem to me that you were beginning with the assumption that the Farrer theory, which I hold to be the most likely solution to the synoptic problem yet, is wrong and that the people who hold it, including the late Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre, and, of course, me, do not have rational reasons for what we believe, but that you could explain how we came to hold the theory we do for irrational reasons. That is, our thinking is wrong, but you could explain how we came to our wrong conclusions because of psychological and sociological reasons.

Ken

Hi Ken, I now call our exchange "the Great Kerfuffle," which is a humorous way of saying "we may have made a mountain out of a molehill." My apologies for causing you offense.

Hi David, I'm glad you came back to the discussion. I realize that I may have sounded overly hostile when I said I'm not interested in how long you have held your ideas or where you had posted them. I was trying to get you to focus on the questions I had asked, but I used an unhelpful method of doing that.

I was not suggesting that "Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre, and, of course, [you], do not have rational reasons for what [you] believe ... that ... [you] came to hold the theory [you] do for irrational reasons."

I don't think I used the word "irrational" but I could be wrong. The ways that individuals respond to dissonance can be compared to defense mechanisms in Freudian psychology. They are rationalization processes, that's all, not meant to suggest that those who employ them are being irrational. People are being very rational when they do it. Some may be meant to hold back a perceived threat, while same processes can actually also drive the integration of new research into the old and allow progress occur. It has developed as a mental process as a way to defend, adapt and overcome evolutionary challenges. Like they say in sports: "Sometimes the best defense is a good offense."

I think 'irrational' was my word. I'm still not sure you're quite getting what my objection to your approach was. You still seem to be saying that those who hold the Q or Two-Document Hypothesis (you mention John Kloppenborg and his student, William Arnal) have the correct, or at least the best available, solution to the synoptic problem and that those who hold the theory that Luke used Matthew in addition to Mark, and that the Q hypothesis is unnecessary are mistaken, but you can explain how we came to be mistaken about the synoptic problem.

I'm very interested in having a conversation about whether Kloppenborg has better reasons for holding the Two-Document Hypothesis than I (and Goulder and Goodacre, of course) do for holding the Farrer Hypothesis. But it sounds like that is not what you want to discuss. Have I gotten you wrong there? Or could we switch the theories and equally well say that Kloppenborg and Arnal are holding back a perceived threat and that they have a mental process as a way to defend, adapt, and overcome evolutionary challenges'?

It at least sounds to me like you are saying that Kloppenborg and Arnal's theory represents truth or at least progress toward the truth and the theory that Luke uses Matthew in addition to Mark is some sort of holding action hanging on to outdated ideas [This sounds very much like what Arnal says, which I will quote below]. If so, I don't think you understand what Goulder and Goodacre (and I) have argued, or at least understand it very differently from the way I understand it.

P.S. I am ... glad to hear that you will be reading the books I mentioned. Perhaps you will even be persuaded by them, though perhaps not. Goodacre's Way The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze is an easy introduction, but it is the first 128 pages of Goulder's Luke: A New Paradigm that make the fundamental argument for Luke's use of Matthew and dispensing with Q.

Egad! Your favorite writer's book has a bigger introduction (128 pages) than my favorite book's introduction (a mere 40). I take that as humor, so we *can* introduce a little humor into these discussions again.

Besides the usual assortment of Q related research by Kloppenborg, whose works I regard quite highly, including his later ones such as Excavating Q [community], and the usual assortment of Q synopses in Greek, I only have one or two of Goodacre's articles saved.

Okay, but I think have to be familiar with what Goulder and Goodacre have written in order to be able to represent accurately what motivated them to take the positions they do. Does that not seem reasonable to you?

I am very familiar with Kloppenborg's work, and have now read Arnal, but I would caution against judging Goulder or Goodacre's work (or anyone's work) based on what their opponents say about it. Kloppenborg at least engages with the Goulder and the Farrer theory in Excavating Q (2000), though I think there are problems with his argumentation. Arnal bluntly dismisses those who do not accept the Two-Document Hypothesis in toto with a polemical characterization:

“Here is not the place to defend the two-document hypothesis, the
postulation of Q, or the specifics of the reconstruction of Q's original
wording. It will be sufficient here to point out that, although there is a
contingent within New Testament scholarship that does cast doubt on
the validity of the two-source theory, and to which we owe many insightful
and unquestionably correct insights about the ideological tendentiousness
of that theory's initial formulation, such scholarship has
something of the character of creationism in the context of academic
biology: it attempts to use the tools and language of the discipline, but
remains a marginalized position, one that represents an effort to turn
back the clock on scholarly progress. Books on biological issues do not
need to provide initial justifications for their assumption of evolutionary
theory.” [William Arnal, Jesus and the Village Scribes, 2001, 23]

“One might add that the reluctance to approach scholarship on Q seriously has much less to do with its hypothetical character than with its novel implications. The problem with Q is not that it does not exist but that it tends to call into question some of the cherished historical conclusions of the last four or five decades of New Testament scholarship. Scholars having strong commitments to those conclusions can handily avoid having to defend them in any strenuous or rigorous way by dismissing as hypothetical the document that is causing most of the trouble [Arnal, 26].”

Goodacre's two books that I mentioned were still in the future when Arnal wrote, but I do not think Goulder's Luke (1989) fits under the generalization Arnal makes.I find it impossible to think that those 128 pages of Goulder's Luke I mentioned do not constitute a strenuous and rigorous defense of the theory that Luke used Matthew and we do not need to hypothesize a Q document.

He [Goodacre] speaks of E P Sanders very highly as an early influence, so I am pretty sure he had looked at the issue very closely. IIRC, Sanders was talking about trends commonly thought to indicate direction of movement of tradition. Those "general trends" based as they were on Bultman's "Form Criticism," he thought were proven to be too inaccurate to be useful. Now I can see that on examination of specified cases, maybe a direction can be safely assumed. I think I admitted that their [er, your] non-Q explanation could work. My sin, I hope, was over generalizing a psychological cause for what I perceived as hyper vigilance by some, in a way that caused you offense. Again, my humble apologies. I am a bad person, baaad ...

I think what you said was that they preferred a complex theory (one that required many steps) instead of the more direct Q theory. That could be true, but I'd like to see you show it before using it as the basis for further discussion.

Since the Synoptic problem, with all the Q associations, is something I have long put off, maybe now is the time to get back on it. Usually I read a lot, digest it, test some ideas out to confirm what has been asserted, before I would even think of commenting, so - perhaps thankfully - there will be no posts on this anytime soon. <whew!>

Right. I think it would be an excellent idea to read and absorb Goulder and Goodacre's work before characterizing it. It may take a while.

Best,

Ken

P.S. There is also E.P. Sanders, Studying the Synoptic Gosples (1989), which is an excellent introduction to the synoptic problem. I do not think Sanders can be plausibly fit under Arna's generalizations either.

[Sinouhe]

Ken, did you read Eric Eve's latest book "Relating the Gospels"?

IMG_2716.jpeg (154.46 KiB) Viewed 207 times

I think he did a good job advocating for the Farrer theory.

[Giuseppe]

The fact that the maximum exponent of the Farrer Theory, Goodacre, is reluctant to even change slightly his own theory so to allow that *Ev precedes Luke and Matthew (but always under the Markan priority), is a strong indirect evidence of a resistance a priori to accept Marcion in the synoptic question, which is simply: intellectually dishonest.

[StephenGoranson]

Giuseppe, dating Marcion differently than your preference is not "intellectually dishonest."

[Ken Olson]

Ken, did you read Eric Eve's latest book "Relating the Gospels"?

IMG_2716.jpeg

I think he did a good job advocating for the Farrer theory.

Yes, he did. I've given the book a look though and read the sections on Beelzebul and unpicking carefully. Eve and I have been criticized on that and I'm working on a response, but it's about the fourth project in line now.

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe, dating Marcion differently than your preference is not "intellectually dishonest."

sure sure, but at a given price: to swallow the idea that a gospel with a frivolous and childish birth story could precede *Ev.

It is a case of mere human stupidity, if not of intellectual dishonesty.