I reviewed Zeba Crook's Parallel Gospels at this year's SBL and Crook responded. I now have a few comments on that response. I am grateful for Zeba's thoughtful comments. I will take his points in turn:
(1) On the lack of word-alignment, I had not realized that this was a publisher's decision rather than an author's decision. I understand the importance of affordability but I think it is a great shame that something so fundamental to Synopsis construction is here jettisoned because of cost considerations.
In the discussion on Monday, I facetiously suggested that one could save a lot of space by getting rid of Q from the Synopsis, thereby freeing up more space for word-alignment.
(2) On the source-language translation, I understand Zeba's decision but I disagree with it. The difficulty is that prepositions, for example, do not exist on their own, as individual sense-units. They only attain meaning in connection with nouns in a particular case, so it makes no sense to translate hypo always as "under" and meta always as "with". It is misleading to translate every preposition the same way, and it is a decision that greatly detracts from the appeal of the Synopsis.
(3) I am a little surprised by Zeba's response on the inclusion of Q in the Synopsis. I think the inclusion of Q would be defensible on the grounds that it helps to illustrate the Two-Source Theory or that it facilitates comparison between Matthew, Luke and the reconstructed text of Q, but it is surely not debatable that including one solution to the problem into the presentation of the data prejudices the reader in favour of that solution, is it?
Zeba suggests that his Synopsis offers some encouragement to the Farrer Theory, e.g. placement of double tradition pericopes in the Synopsis and also the generation of more minor agreements. However, the point about minor agreements is at least in part negated by the fact that Q is present in this synopsis to explain key minor agreements, especially Q 3.3 and Q 4.16.
Zeba also suggests that the inclusion of Q is no different from the inclusion of Thomas or John, but there is, of course, a material difference. Both Thomas and John are extant works with textual witnesses and patristic citations; they are not hypothetical texts. In fact, the (helpful) inclusion of Thomas and John illustrates my point well -- that a Synopsis should aim to present the data without prejudice to a given solution to the problem. Integrating Q into the presentation of the data confuses problem with solution in a fundamental way.
But my key point here is the pedagogical difficulty of including Q in the Synopsis, which turns double tradition into a second kind of triple tradition, and makes colouring the Synopsis much more difficult. These are issues that are worth considering further.
Showing posts with label Zeba Crook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zeba Crook. Show all posts
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Zeba Crook's Response to my Review of Parallel Gospels
I am grateful to Zeba Crook for making available his response to my review of his Parallel Gospels and to Loren Rosson for posting it on his blog:
Review of Crook's Parallel Gospels
At this year's SBL in Chicago, I took part in a session on Monday afternoon, in the Synoptic Gospels section, that was devoted to reviewing Zeba Crook's Parallel Gospels. The other reviewers were Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Paul Foster and Robert Derrenbacker. My article review is available here:
Zeba Crook's Parallel Gospels: Review Article
Mark Goodacre
Update (22 April 2014): My conference paper is now revised and published in SBL's Review of Biblical Literature here:
Review of Zeba A. Crook, Parallel Gospels [PDF]
Mark Goodacre
Please cite as: Mark Goodacre, review of Zeba A. Crook, Parallel Gospels: A Synopsis of Early Christian Writing, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2014)
Zeba Crook's Parallel Gospels: Review Article
Mark Goodacre
Update (22 April 2014): My conference paper is now revised and published in SBL's Review of Biblical Literature here:
Review of Zeba A. Crook, Parallel Gospels [PDF]
Mark Goodacre
Please cite as: Mark Goodacre, review of Zeba A. Crook, Parallel Gospels: A Synopsis of Early Christian Writing, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2014)
Saturday, November 20, 2010
SBL Atlanta 2010, Saturday, #SBL10
Several days ago, when I actually checked the programme, I realized that Saturday was going to be a big day. Somehow, I had managed to find myself speaking three times on the one day. The first of these is not, strictly speaking, part of the SBL Annual Meeting. Rather, as some of you will know, the Biblical Archaeology Society holds its annual "BibFest" round the corner from the SBL and several of us go to address the conference there on topics of interest to us. My topic this year was "Paul's Letters: Women, Men and the End", some reflections on the roles played by women in Paul's churches (specifically Phoebe, Prisca, Junia) and then some analysis of the troubling passages in 1 Cor. 11 and 14, with conclusions on the eschatological nature of Paul's views on women and men, in discussion of Gal. 3.28. I like speaking at the BAS -- it is an audience of enthusiasts who always have interesting comments and questions, and who appear appreciative of our coming along to speak to them.
My second stint of the day was in the Ideological Criticism section. This is where all the cool kids hang out, and it is not my usual haunting ground. The topic was James Crossley's book Jesus in an Age of Terror. My paper offered a critique of James's discussion of the "politics of the bibliobloggers" and it is probably something that I will offer here in the blog in due course to generate some further discussion. Zeba Crook spoke second and discussed the representation of the context group in James's book -- and he had some critical things to say. Bill Arnal offered a more sympathetic reading of James's book and Roland Boer offered some sophisticated and often very funny reflections on what James was doing.
James gave a response to our four presentations and there was a very lively discussion afterwards. I am still reflecting on this session and I am not really sure what to make of it. I think I'd like to read all the papers and James's response and to work out where things stand. I'll come back to this in due course. I did not have any time to chew over that session in my mind, though, because I went from a panel with the cool kids to a panel with the bigwigs.
Pat McCullough organized a session entitled "Finding your 'niche' in Biblical Studies". There were five panelists, Christopher Hays, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Dale Martin and Paula Fredriksen and me. I have shared here in the blog the substance of my short presentation. I was hugely impressed with the other speakers, all of whom were witty, engaging, compelling. We had ten minutes or so each. The room was packed. There must have been two or three hundred people there, and there were people standing at the side. After we had finished speaking, the room emptied out a good deal, but then there was time for discussion of the topic and many of the contributions from the floor were excellent too.
I dined tonight with an old friend at Azio, an Italian place just a couple of blocks away from the conference and it was a hugely enjoyable evening. There is also a nice little Irish pub not far away from the conference hotels that is well worth a visit.
My second stint of the day was in the Ideological Criticism section. This is where all the cool kids hang out, and it is not my usual haunting ground. The topic was James Crossley's book Jesus in an Age of Terror. My paper offered a critique of James's discussion of the "politics of the bibliobloggers" and it is probably something that I will offer here in the blog in due course to generate some further discussion. Zeba Crook spoke second and discussed the representation of the context group in James's book -- and he had some critical things to say. Bill Arnal offered a more sympathetic reading of James's book and Roland Boer offered some sophisticated and often very funny reflections on what James was doing.
James gave a response to our four presentations and there was a very lively discussion afterwards. I am still reflecting on this session and I am not really sure what to make of it. I think I'd like to read all the papers and James's response and to work out where things stand. I'll come back to this in due course. I did not have any time to chew over that session in my mind, though, because I went from a panel with the cool kids to a panel with the bigwigs.
Pat McCullough organized a session entitled "Finding your 'niche' in Biblical Studies". There were five panelists, Christopher Hays, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Dale Martin and Paula Fredriksen and me. I have shared here in the blog the substance of my short presentation. I was hugely impressed with the other speakers, all of whom were witty, engaging, compelling. We had ten minutes or so each. The room was packed. There must have been two or three hundred people there, and there were people standing at the side. After we had finished speaking, the room emptied out a good deal, but then there was time for discussion of the topic and many of the contributions from the floor were excellent too.
I dined tonight with an old friend at Azio, an Italian place just a couple of blocks away from the conference and it was a hugely enjoyable evening. There is also a nice little Irish pub not far away from the conference hotels that is well worth a visit.
Friday, December 03, 2004
Zeba Crook's English Synopsis Update
Back in May, I blogged on Zeba Crook's English Reader's Synopsis. Zeba now has an updated version setting out the advantages of this proposal, and providing some samples of the Synopsis at the following URL:
English Reader's Synopsis
As I commented previously, this looks like a valuable project, if I have some qualms about the use of reconstructed Q here for the reasons previously articulated, especially that it will negate the usual pedagogical advantage of having two columns for double tradition. When I teach the Synoptic Problem to introductory classes, the kind of audience that this Synopsis is aimed at, I find it straightforward to explain triple tradition by showing a Synopsis in three columns and double tradition by showing a Synopsis in two columns. It would be impossible to do that with this Synopsis. The Synoptic Problem is already complicated enough, and the pedagogical disadvantage for the introductory student of double tradition in three columns would, in my judgement, cause problems. Moreover, I would always prefer, even with more advanced students, not to have a Q column present since this potentially forecloses the question of the solution to the Synoptic Problem, so limiting the usability of the Synopsis.
English Reader's Synopsis
As I commented previously, this looks like a valuable project, if I have some qualms about the use of reconstructed Q here for the reasons previously articulated, especially that it will negate the usual pedagogical advantage of having two columns for double tradition. When I teach the Synoptic Problem to introductory classes, the kind of audience that this Synopsis is aimed at, I find it straightforward to explain triple tradition by showing a Synopsis in three columns and double tradition by showing a Synopsis in two columns. It would be impossible to do that with this Synopsis. The Synoptic Problem is already complicated enough, and the pedagogical disadvantage for the introductory student of double tradition in three columns would, in my judgement, cause problems. Moreover, I would always prefer, even with more advanced students, not to have a Q column present since this potentially forecloses the question of the solution to the Synoptic Problem, so limiting the usability of the Synopsis.
Friday, May 07, 2004
English Reader's Synopsis
I commented yesterday on Zeba Crook's homepage. I would now like to draw attention to this element on his homepage:
An English Reader's Synopsis
This is an introduction to a project on which Crook has been working for some years. There are several examples in the PDF file to which the above page links. Crook is attempting a major English language Synopsis in which the use of a "source language translation" (i.e. literal, non-idiomatic) will help the reader to see as many of the actual agreements in the Greek as possible, agreements that are sometimes obscured in "target language translation" Synopses like Throckmorton's Gospel Parallels. Stephen Carlson makes some useful comments on this in Hypotyposeis and asks about the target audience for the proposal. I would say that there is a potential market at least among the growing number of undergraduate Theology students in the UK who do not do Greek. Greek went optional on the Theology BA Honours in 1995 here in Birmingham and most, if not all, other British Universities are the same. When I was in Oxford, Greek was still compulsory for Single Honours Theology BA students but I understand that this is the case no longer. But the students without Greek still want to do courses on Jesus and the Gospels and it will be useful to be able to push them towards a resource like the one proposed by Crook. When I am teaching New Testament courses to our undergraduates, I make use of my own simple English language Synopses, some of which I have made available on-line (I have a lot more, so perhaps I ought to think about making those more broadly available too). We have now moved Greek Synopsis work into the Level 2-3 Greek New Testament courses.
There may be sufficient interest for an English language Synopsis like the one Crook is proposing for a more general audience, but I don't know.
Some further comments on the proposal:
(1) Its essential ethos is right. I recall E. P. Sanders complaining that the Funk Synopsis matches up parallels in the RSV that are not actually present in the Greek. I have not checked up the Funk Synopsis to see if that is right or not. See Robert Walter Funk, New Gospel Parallels: Volume One, The Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Even that is not true, the comment points up the potential danger with using "target language translation".
(2) Crook explains that "Each gospel is presented in its own order, indicated when the gospel name and passages appear in bold lettering". This sounds like a good idea for combatting the big problem over how to order a Synopsis. For English-only readers, one should probably be especially conscious of the difficulties they might have in finding parallels and anything that facilitates their easy handling of them should be encouraged. If I understand Crook's proposal correctly, pericopae will be repeated in that particular Gospel's relevant order where that Gospels is out of sync with one or both of the others.
(3) I am fully behind the importance of teaching textual criticism to users of the Synopsis. I wonder, though, if the textual apparatus provided is a bit too detailed for an English language only reader. I am not sure if the target audience is conceptualised clearly here. The list of witnesses in the selected cases where textual apparatus is provided is too terse and focussed for non-Greek readers. I would have thought that something that explains the most important variations is required or the student will ignore it.
(4) My major qualm about the proposal is the use of the reconstructed text of Q in the Synopsis. On one level, this is a useful and interesting way of showing students where the IQP's Reconstructed Q comes from, i.e. from Synoptic comparison between Matthew and Luke. But my concern is that the use of Q limits the usefulness of the Synopsis in a fundamental way by foreclosing one of the key issues in Synoptic Problem research, which is the very reason for looking at a Synopsis. Instead of acting as a tool for students to investigate and test the Q hypothesis, the actual printing of the reconstructed text of Q inevitably gives Q a tangibility, a concrete presence, that makes it harder to encourage students to test the hypothesis. In my experience of teaching the Synoptic Problem, many students have difficulty grasping the Q hypothesis -- it takes a lot of patient explanation -- and they are quickly put off if they hear about its chapter and verse numbers, its reconstructed text and so on. In fact I tend to avoid talking about the properties of reconstructed Q in introductory lectures because it unduly biases the students against the Q hypothesis. I want them to understand the hypothesis and to judge it as fairly as possible and not to be biased against it by leaping ahead too quickly to reconstructed Q. This may just be my experience; it may just be Birmingham students! But I know that I would find it tough to introduce a Gospel Synopsis to undergraduate students that features the text of Q, with verse numbers and the like. I am afraid that many of them would simply refuse to take it seriously, for all my attempts to defend it.
(5) There is a related practical issue. The introduction of Q turns the three-column Synopsis into a four column Synopsis (and more when Thomas and John come in too). I think this is potentially problematic on two fronts. First, it reduces the simplicity of the presentation, thinning out the columns and crowding the page. This is a shame in a Synopsis that is designed to appeal to undergraduate students. Second, it radically alters the opportunity to colour the Synopsis. In my own view, it is greatly fortuitous that there are three Synoptic Gospels and three primary colours and that the combinations between them make colouring both intuitive and fun (see previous blog entry and discussion in my The Synoptic Problem). I'm not sure how one would encourage students to colour a four-column Synopsis. Would one leave Q white? Would one colour in-line with the colouring of Matthew and Luke so that one could see how the wording of Q had been reconstructed? Either way, it seems to me that the problem is that one weakens the gift we have been given of three Synoptic Gospels.
(6) A related problem is that I would find it less straightforward to use a Synopsis like this in teaching the Synoptic Problem. Pure triple tradition is still in three columns, so one has the link there between triple and three columns. But the pure double tradition is in three columns, Matthew, Q and Luke, and so it's less straightforward to explain these "triple" and "double" tradition terms. This might sound like an overly simple point but I reckon that it is a very useful way to begin the discussion of the Synoptic Problem and to go from triple tradition and double tradition to possible explanations of these.
My critical comments should not detract from the fact that, to repeat, I think this a very interesting proposal with some real merit.
Update (3 December 2004): Zeba Crook has uploaded a new version of the proposal here:
English Reader's Synopsis
An English Reader's Synopsis
This is an introduction to a project on which Crook has been working for some years. There are several examples in the PDF file to which the above page links. Crook is attempting a major English language Synopsis in which the use of a "source language translation" (i.e. literal, non-idiomatic) will help the reader to see as many of the actual agreements in the Greek as possible, agreements that are sometimes obscured in "target language translation" Synopses like Throckmorton's Gospel Parallels. Stephen Carlson makes some useful comments on this in Hypotyposeis and asks about the target audience for the proposal. I would say that there is a potential market at least among the growing number of undergraduate Theology students in the UK who do not do Greek. Greek went optional on the Theology BA Honours in 1995 here in Birmingham and most, if not all, other British Universities are the same. When I was in Oxford, Greek was still compulsory for Single Honours Theology BA students but I understand that this is the case no longer. But the students without Greek still want to do courses on Jesus and the Gospels and it will be useful to be able to push them towards a resource like the one proposed by Crook. When I am teaching New Testament courses to our undergraduates, I make use of my own simple English language Synopses, some of which I have made available on-line (I have a lot more, so perhaps I ought to think about making those more broadly available too). We have now moved Greek Synopsis work into the Level 2-3 Greek New Testament courses.
There may be sufficient interest for an English language Synopsis like the one Crook is proposing for a more general audience, but I don't know.
Some further comments on the proposal:
(1) Its essential ethos is right. I recall E. P. Sanders complaining that the Funk Synopsis matches up parallels in the RSV that are not actually present in the Greek. I have not checked up the Funk Synopsis to see if that is right or not. See Robert Walter Funk, New Gospel Parallels: Volume One, The Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Even that is not true, the comment points up the potential danger with using "target language translation".
(2) Crook explains that "Each gospel is presented in its own order, indicated when the gospel name and passages appear in bold lettering". This sounds like a good idea for combatting the big problem over how to order a Synopsis. For English-only readers, one should probably be especially conscious of the difficulties they might have in finding parallels and anything that facilitates their easy handling of them should be encouraged. If I understand Crook's proposal correctly, pericopae will be repeated in that particular Gospel's relevant order where that Gospels is out of sync with one or both of the others.
(3) I am fully behind the importance of teaching textual criticism to users of the Synopsis. I wonder, though, if the textual apparatus provided is a bit too detailed for an English language only reader. I am not sure if the target audience is conceptualised clearly here. The list of witnesses in the selected cases where textual apparatus is provided is too terse and focussed for non-Greek readers. I would have thought that something that explains the most important variations is required or the student will ignore it.
(4) My major qualm about the proposal is the use of the reconstructed text of Q in the Synopsis. On one level, this is a useful and interesting way of showing students where the IQP's Reconstructed Q comes from, i.e. from Synoptic comparison between Matthew and Luke. But my concern is that the use of Q limits the usefulness of the Synopsis in a fundamental way by foreclosing one of the key issues in Synoptic Problem research, which is the very reason for looking at a Synopsis. Instead of acting as a tool for students to investigate and test the Q hypothesis, the actual printing of the reconstructed text of Q inevitably gives Q a tangibility, a concrete presence, that makes it harder to encourage students to test the hypothesis. In my experience of teaching the Synoptic Problem, many students have difficulty grasping the Q hypothesis -- it takes a lot of patient explanation -- and they are quickly put off if they hear about its chapter and verse numbers, its reconstructed text and so on. In fact I tend to avoid talking about the properties of reconstructed Q in introductory lectures because it unduly biases the students against the Q hypothesis. I want them to understand the hypothesis and to judge it as fairly as possible and not to be biased against it by leaping ahead too quickly to reconstructed Q. This may just be my experience; it may just be Birmingham students! But I know that I would find it tough to introduce a Gospel Synopsis to undergraduate students that features the text of Q, with verse numbers and the like. I am afraid that many of them would simply refuse to take it seriously, for all my attempts to defend it.
(5) There is a related practical issue. The introduction of Q turns the three-column Synopsis into a four column Synopsis (and more when Thomas and John come in too). I think this is potentially problematic on two fronts. First, it reduces the simplicity of the presentation, thinning out the columns and crowding the page. This is a shame in a Synopsis that is designed to appeal to undergraduate students. Second, it radically alters the opportunity to colour the Synopsis. In my own view, it is greatly fortuitous that there are three Synoptic Gospels and three primary colours and that the combinations between them make colouring both intuitive and fun (see previous blog entry and discussion in my The Synoptic Problem). I'm not sure how one would encourage students to colour a four-column Synopsis. Would one leave Q white? Would one colour in-line with the colouring of Matthew and Luke so that one could see how the wording of Q had been reconstructed? Either way, it seems to me that the problem is that one weakens the gift we have been given of three Synoptic Gospels.
(6) A related problem is that I would find it less straightforward to use a Synopsis like this in teaching the Synoptic Problem. Pure triple tradition is still in three columns, so one has the link there between triple and three columns. But the pure double tradition is in three columns, Matthew, Q and Luke, and so it's less straightforward to explain these "triple" and "double" tradition terms. This might sound like an overly simple point but I reckon that it is a very useful way to begin the discussion of the Synoptic Problem and to go from triple tradition and double tradition to possible explanations of these.
My critical comments should not detract from the fact that, to repeat, I think this a very interesting proposal with some real merit.
Update (3 December 2004): Zeba Crook has uploaded a new version of the proposal here:
English Reader's Synopsis
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Zeba Crook's Homepage
Back in December on Hypotyposeis, Stephen Carlson mentioned Zeba Crook's English Reader's Synopsis. I have now added Zeba Crook's homepage to my Scholars: C page:
Zeba A. Crook Homepage
As you will know if you peruse Scholars' Homepages, they vary enormously, from just a page with a paragraph or two prepared by support staff, to entire web sites with variety of useful resources. This is a good one, with CV, list of publications, course materials, some links and an introduction to the project mentioned above, on which more anon.
Zeba A. Crook Homepage
As you will know if you peruse Scholars' Homepages, they vary enormously, from just a page with a paragraph or two prepared by support staff, to entire web sites with variety of useful resources. This is a good one, with CV, list of publications, course materials, some links and an introduction to the project mentioned above, on which more anon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)