tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post115013815529899403..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: What's wrong with redaction criticism?Mark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1150177783009785532006-06-13T01:49:00.000-04:002006-06-13T01:49:00.000-04:00Thanks, JB. Fancy that, and apologies I haven't h...Thanks, JB. Fancy that, and apologies I haven't had to a chance to read your blog. I have blogged on the topic in connection with SBL papers given on the topic, one on "The Rock on Rocky Ground", concerning Matthew's reading of Mark's characterization of Peter, and one on Elijah and John the Baptist. They were temporarily available here but have been removed because one is being revised for publication and one is submitted for publication. Let me know if you'd like a copy.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1150169184876474182006-06-12T23:26:00.000-04:002006-06-12T23:26:00.000-04:00NO WAY! Forgive me for gushing but I put on my bl...NO WAY! Forgive me for gushing but I put on my blog not 8 hours ago a request for discussion/biblio on "Matthew as reader of Mark," with special mention made of the idea that Mark probably heavily influenced Matthew's theology in a great many ways. <BR/><BR/>I wonder now if you have mentioned this in the past and it stayed with me. I tried to google key phrases ("Matthew as a reader of Mark" and variations) but found nothing.J. B. Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17074055343675084879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1150159305703540442006-06-12T20:41:00.000-04:002006-06-12T20:41:00.000-04:00Michael: many thanks for that. If so, then this ...Michael: many thanks for that. If so, then this must be yet another occasion where I have read something, forgotten about it and resurrected it as my own idea! I usually do this with Michael Goulder's stuff, so it would be a pleasant change to have done it with Drury. I don't have Drury with me at the minute so I will have to check it when I'm next in the office.<BR/><BR/>Simon: thanks for that. At least with other theories one has concrete texts that one can compare with one another. What concerns me about hte way people work with Q is that the text is reconstructed in the very process of doing the redaction criticism, and then that text is going to be made a basis for subsequent redaction criticism.<BR/><BR/>Rick: I gave the paper at the 2002 SBL in Toronto and would be happy to send you a copy. No plans for publication on that one yet.<BR/><BR/>Michael: good questions. I look forward to your JTS piece and likewise your SBL piece on the topic (and congratulations to the Aussies today. What a cracking match!).<BR/><BR/>Doug: thanks for that. No, point 5 is an "add on" rather than foundational. Contrary to popular belief, I am interested in a lot more than just the Synoptic Problem : ) The circularity I am concerned about relates specifically to the attempt to use redaction criticism to reconstruct a hypothetical text and then use that text for the basis of redaction criticism. That's a problem one finds just with hypothetical texts. And I agree about the serious problems in finding the evangelists' communities; I just long for a little more clarity on the from which / to which issue. Cheers.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1150151831352178612006-06-12T18:37:00.000-04:002006-06-12T18:37:00.000-04:00First of all, to pick up on your point 5 (which I ...First of all, to pick up on your point 5 (which I guess is foundational in many ways to your concerns!) it's not just a question of Q. Except for seeing how Matt and Luke use Mark, which gives a reasonable basis for a limited redaction criticism, every other attempt depends on reconstruction, whether it is the two source hypothesis, the Farrer hypothesis or any other. Every view of an evangelist's redaction depends on circularity, outside the consensus of using Mark. That is, in fat a very limited basis, but not an irrelevant one for establishing tendencies.<BR/>On your first point, I would certainly want to acknowledge some influence from the church community within which the evangelist wrote as possible, but I doubt we could establish with any degree of feasibility what comes from the church community and what comes from the evangelist. We have no certainty of how itinerant any evangelist is. Perhaps Matt is based in Antioch or around when he writes, but how long has he been part of the church there? How much does an assessment of Matt's Syrian tendencies depend on an assumption that the Didache isn't dependent on Matthew's teaching. How much individual theology is an evangelist allowed, and how could we tell the difference (given the paucity of evidence) between an evangelist's own thought, and that of his community. Luke is presumably associated (at the least)in some way with Pauline churches, yet there is room for considerable dispute about whether he reflects Pauline theology on a large number of key questions.<BR/>I find myself, in the end, far more sceptical about redaction criticism than you.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10326403777027937887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1150151755389766302006-06-12T18:35:00.000-04:002006-06-12T18:35:00.000-04:00Mark, on point (1) you say: "[Bauckham, GAC] does ...Mark, on point (1) you say: "[Bauckham, GAC] does not sufficiently distinguish between the communities from which the Gospels were written from the communities to which the Gospels were allegedly written." In a paper forthcoming in JTS I argue that it is nearly impossible to distinguish these in the Gospel texts themselves. How do we know the difference between what is descriptive of an author's community and what the author thinks is prescriptive for the audience he's writing for?Michael F. Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1150149068234522612006-06-12T17:51:00.000-04:002006-06-12T17:51:00.000-04:00Likwise concerning pt. 3, I'm intrigued by the pap...Likwise concerning pt. 3, I'm intrigued by the paper you allude to. I'm curious as to how Jesus as Elijah (the harbinger of the Messiah) can be reconciled with the very early declaration of Jesus as the Messiah. Do you mean Jesus as Elijah in the sense that JBap is so described?<BR/><BR/>I've toyed with the idea of "Jesus as Elijah" before the crucifixion, and "Jesus as Messiah" after the resurrection experiences, but this, IMO, is incredibly speculative. Not utterly indefensible, but not defensible enough either.<BR/><BR/>Any idea when/where your paper will be published?Rick Sumnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10284073533968750655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1150146293332733402006-06-12T17:04:00.000-04:002006-06-12T17:04:00.000-04:00I agree entirely with point 5. We seem to be makin...I agree entirely with point 5. We seem to be making all sorts of assertions about Q that are affecting our reading of the 'original' gospel, of the nature of Jesus' message and self understanding in a way that resembles the Da Vinci Code more than serious historical scholarship. But I do wonder if the whole model of synoptic relationships is too fixed - with or without Q - so that someone has to have used somebody else and hence we can read between the gaps and create a theological view from the differences.simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13470335172330595542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1150144625079745652006-06-12T16:37:00.000-04:002006-06-12T16:37:00.000-04:00Concerning pt. 3, doesn't Drury have much to say a...Concerning pt. 3, doesn't Drury have much to say about Matthew's following of Mark's innovation (that John the Baptist is an Elijah type figure) whereas Luke sticks with the older Jesus-as- Elijah approach? I seem to recall reading it recently in "Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel".Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13754109895201401316noreply@blogger.com