tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post1338982193409550038..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Exploring our Matrix Explores the Case Against QMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-61563590114297620152009-10-15T11:50:14.869-04:002009-10-15T11:50:14.869-04:00Mark, you are of course right that if we are to pr...Mark, you are of course right that if we are to prove use of a written source, verbatim agreement is the really decisive evidence(I should note that, in a strange quasi-Synoptic way, I began replying to you in the comment section on my blog before realizing that your comment was posted <i>here</i>). <br /><br />Part of the problem is that it has been hard to quantify exactly what sorts of and extent of agreement <i>proves</i> a literary dependence, while taking seriously the fact that divergence in no way proves independence. And, in relation to another comment on my blog, often the argument comes down to what we can or can't imagine an author doing, which isn't a particularly strong argument - and, as you Mark show in your book, sometimes the problem is a mistaken impression of what would have been involved, rather than any genuine unlikelihood that an author would use a source in a particular way.<br /><br />I think there is evidence that ancient authors, even when they used a source, rarely copied it word for word and line for line - although sometimes they did so. And so one subject I want to investigate further in the near future is whether we have any hope of telling the difference between various scenarios, such as (1) a situation in which Luke used Matthew but read a whole pericope, then turned away from the text of Matthew to write his own version without looking back at it or only doing so occasionally, and (2) Matthew and Luke using a common no-longer-extant source independently of one another. Since there is a range of agreement from slight to substantial, the question is what proves literary dependence, especially since such dependence could involve a range of forms from copying word for word to reading from Matthew and writing one's own version a few days later.<br /><br />We could have a whole section as SBL dedicated to actually reading things to people in one session and then testing their memory of what they heard in a subsequent session - now <i>that</i> could be fun! :)James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-54286063346605372132009-10-15T10:28:02.217-04:002009-10-15T10:28:02.217-04:00Scott: good point. I think this supports the case...Scott: good point. I think this supports the case since recall of "bits of Shakespeare or the KJV" are of course recall of texts.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-35870476431395754052009-10-15T10:26:02.013-04:002009-10-15T10:26:02.013-04:00PS Definitely topics worth addressing. I think tha...PS Definitely topics worth addressing. I think that there is a lot of unclear thinking around on the question of orality and textuality, memory, text and oral tradition. Not sure I'd be too keen on a whole new SBL section, but perhaps worth exploring.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-44798687230380784092009-10-15T10:23:48.053-04:002009-10-15T10:23:48.053-04:00Thanks, James. There are some nice NA26 texts ava...Thanks, James. There are some nice NA26 texts available on the web -- I share the fatigue! <br /><br />In discussions with you, we tend to focus on the big differences between Matthew and Luke and that is fine because it is clearly a sticking point for you, and one that I need to address in my own thinking. But in terms of general approach, I would never begin from the areas of major difference and reason from there. In discussions about links between texts, you have to begin from the areas of high verbatim agreement and see where they lead. When I have had cases of plagiarism by students, I establish the case that they have copied by means of looking for the highest verbatim agreement sections. What I find interesting about the Synoptic Problem is that range of agreement, from 100% all the way down to a few percentage points. How we explain the sliding scale is, of course, the heart of the problem. But our best bet for establishing direct links lies in the material at the high verbatim level.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-76939929385035910672009-10-15T09:14:33.613-04:002009-10-15T09:14:33.613-04:00Oops, I neglected to subscribe. I'm now doing ...Oops, I neglected to subscribe. I'm now doing so - feel free to delete this!James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-68312976367248154642009-10-15T09:13:08.349-04:002009-10-15T09:13:08.349-04:00Thanks for replying, Mark! And well done spotting ...Thanks for replying, Mark! And well done spotting the evidence for authorial fatigue in my blog post - I went with a version of the Greek text readily available online rather than be bothered to type out the NA text. :)<br /><br />I certainly agree with you that it is, at least in theory, possible to explain difference and disagreement in a way that also envisages use of the very literary source that is being disagreed with (if that makes sense). At the moment, I'm not sure that I am confident in our ability to tell with confidence which of the many scenarios I mentioned in my post is in fact the case. And so I do hope to do some more work in the near future on that methodological issue. <br /><br />I wonder whether there would be interest in something on this specific topic at SBL, either under the auspices of an already-existing section, or as something new...James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-41824677360644602622009-10-15T08:55:11.413-04:002009-10-15T08:55:11.413-04:00"A string of five words including one that is..."A string of five words including one that is rare is striking"<br /><br />Might not the presence of a rare word aid in the verbatim recall of an entire phrase. The unusual wording would make it stick in your mind much like bits of Shakespeare of the KJV do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com