Gospel Writing and Canon
An interesting new book Francis Watson, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective apparently deals with numerous issues including Gospel sources:

Table of Contents

• Part One: The Eclipse of the Fourfold Gospel
  • 1. Augustine’s Ambitious Legacy
  • 2. Dismantling the Canon: Lessing/Reimarus
• Part Two: Reframing Gospel Origins
  • 3. The Coincidences of Q
  • 4. Luke the Interpreter
  • 5. Thomas versus Q
  • 6. Interpreting a Johannine Source (Jn, GEger)
  • 7. Reinterpreting in Parallel (Jn, GTh, GPet)
• Part Three: The Canonical Construct
• 8. The East: Limiting Plurality
• 9. The West: Towards Consensus
• 10. Origen: Canonical Hermeneutics
• 11. Image, Symbol, Liturgy
• In lieu of a Conclusion: Seven Theses on Jesus and the Canonical Gospel

 It seems Watson accepts the Farrer-Goodacre 'no-Q' stance as Q “entails a radical reconstruction of Christian origins” (p118). But how a theory has been used by some scholars need not be confused with what the theory entails.

Revisiting Past Posts in the Future

I had thought that I would have finished recapping the topics covered during my first year of blogging by now. Instead, it seems I will be revisiting them at a slower pace. Today I mention the topic Claiming Theological and Pastoral Significance (for one's source theory).

I discussed the topic in three posts (here, here, & here) and concluded that despite the claims for significance being made there appears little evidence that appealing to pastoral and theological 'implications' can be shown to have real differences in terms of significant differences since it is almost impossible to state what such implications would be (or should be). Farmer's source theory cannot be seen as any more superior than other source theories based on its alleged pastoral significance, given the highly subjective nature of such criteria (and its use). Who is to say whether reducing, increasing or re-ordering Gospel sources makes for a 'better' overall source theory simply because it might appeal theologically to lay persons and their preferences for early sources on the life of Jesus?  

Similarly Kloppenborg's 'theological stakes' were not very significant at all.  The Gospel of Mark is rather combative on any source theory as well as having downplayed the notion of Jesus as apocalyptic Judge (again, from the perspective of any source theory). Even Kloppenborg's implications of the 'Q hypothesis' seem rather stretched. One has to take Q as a full blown document with its own complete theology (i.e. produced by Christians who did not see the need for giving an account of Jesus' death). Yet because Kloppenborg makes the point that Paul's theology was not necessarily representative of normative theology of that time then do not the Gospels on almost any source theory post-date Paul and consequently provide a more integrated/culminated  interpretation of the significance of Jesus' death (and their various perspectives allow for different interpretations of Jesus' death--Luke for example has Jesus' death as more of a necessary event than a salvific one, so it's not really Kloppenborg's Q hypothesis that makes the difference Kloppenborg claims).

Different Source Theory Implications part 2

Previously when writing about theological implications for one’s synoptic solution, I was rather dismissive of the suggestion that there were any real differences between source theories. Let me quote the notion as expressed by Scot McKnight, "A Generation Who Knew Not Streeter: The Case For Markan Priority," chapter 3 in, David Alan Black and David R. Beck (eds.) Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 95,

Griesbach and Oxford proponents differ substantially; and the differences are enormous in implication. But they are united in this: the problem is worthy of study, and it makes a difference for interpretation, for history, for theology, and for pastoral theology.[footnote]55

55 J. S. Kloppenborg, "The Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem," in The Four Gospels--1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols., BETL 100 (Leuven University Press), 1:93-120, provides an excellent example of how modern scholars sort out the differences that various solutions offer.

I believe this to be grossly overstating the case. I have since tracked down Kloppenborg’s article and wish to comment here. Kloppenborg only compares two synoptic theories for comparison, and I guess the reason he chose to compare the Griesbach Hypothesis with the Two Document Hypothesis was because of the contrast in hypothesized sources for Griesbach’s theory (whereby Mk is no source at all and neither is Q). Although I would not see these two solutions as the top contenders it is foreseeable if one chose some "modified two-source theory" or "three-source theory" to compare with the Farrer theory there would obviously be even less difference. But even with these two contrasting source theories, Kloppenborg comes up with few results. In fact there are basically only three differences he asserts:

(1) On the Griesbach Hypothesis, the author of Mk "accentuates Jesus’ shunning of his family" and "views Jesus’ family as unbelieving opponents," "systematically vilified the disciples" and "omits any positive sign of the rehabilitation of the disciples, apart from the residual comments in 1428 and 16,7 (both taken from Matthew)" basically, "an eirenic view of Mark is not possible. On the GH, Mark is combative not complementary." But is not Mark’s theology rather combative on any source theory? I doubt very many would disagree with the above assessment of Mark’s theology even from the perspective of Markan priority. Mark strikes me as negating all kinds of views about Jesus (and those who supposedly knew Jesus) and I do not place Mk last.

(2) On the GH Mark has "removed from his christological portrait the motif of Jesus as the apocalyptic judge." But once again, this motif is still a conspicuous absence on the 2DH since this motif was present in Q (in canonical Mk Jesus is not the apocalyptic judge, which again seems deliberate to me—again points negatively made). This was, as I already suspected, disappointing for a section dealing with consequences affecting "christology, soteriology, ecclesiology" and Kloppnborg does himself admit that "for the most part it is not possible to argue that one scenario of development is more probable than another."

(3) Finally Kloppenborg brings out the theological implications of the Q hypothesis: "The most remarkable difference between Q and the narrative gospels lies in the valuation of the theological importance of Jesus’ death." Kloppenborg wishes to affirm that "the impression of normitivity, ubiquity and appropriateness" is an expectation that is merely generated by "the fact of a canon." In other words, Kloppenborg is saying that Paul’s theology of the cross "has mislead generations of scholars into thinking that this rhetoric was successful in promoting his vision and that this vision was representative of the various Christianities alive in the Mediterranean basin." I have no problem with this notion but I must ask, Would it not be considered Lk’s own intention (on the 2DH and the Farrer theory) to portray Jesus’ death as more martyr-like and less sacrificial (for sins)? For author Luke, Jesus’ death was necessary (rather than salvific) so again I don’t really see how Q makes much difference. Kloppenborg’s concludes "that the 2DH implies the existence of early Christians who did not (yet?) see the need of an account of the death of Jesus" but it is not only the 2DH that implies this.

Kloppenborg’s article is intended to raise "critical self-consciousness" "exposing the theologies which are implied by each source hypothesis" but I remain unconvinced that many differences exist, especially since they are not our only Christian documents from the first century.

Different Source Theory Implications?

I would love to see a decent book written for (or with) students dealing with source-critical methods and pressupositions. But perhaps even more relevant for NT students (especially those going into some pastoral or teaching capacity) is a resource dealing with possible differences that different source-critical methods entail. I'm usually less interested in theology than source criticism but what is the relationship between the two? What are the implications in terms of different interpretations (in exegsis & theology), different historical implications, and any different pastoral implications? I've seen various claims that different source theories imply such differences, but I have not seen much evidence. Two supposed differences I will comment on here.

One is obvious--history. Rearranging the order of composition will obviously imply a different Church history. But what would it look like? What would be the big differences? The most extreme case I can think of is when somone suggests that one or more of the Gospels were written very early (i.e. during Paul's lifetime c.50s CE) or very late (say during the second century c.120s). But even in such extreme cases I haven't seen how Church history should be re-written because little attempt is made to show how history is affected by even these extreme source-theories. If there are important differences in results--what are they? Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but most scholars put the Gospels post-Jewish-Roman war (or Mk during) between the 70s-90s and with these guesses not much seems to change if we swap them around, given that evidence of Church history also resides with Paul's letters.

So much for Church history. The other difference I have noticed commented on is in the field of pastoral implications. William Farmer has argued that there are definite differences between source theories. But he did so from the perspective that his theory was more in line with Christian theology and therefore correct! There seems to be unnecessary fear in this line of argument. Farmer's book, The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem (Louisville: Westminster/John Knowx Press 1994), argues for the superiority of the Griesbach hypothesis (2GH/Mt-Lk-Mk) because the concept of justification by faith is missing in Mk (and so Mk cannot have predated Mt)! I'm a little put off at how this kind of argument might work and I don't think students will follow the logic either. Here is a link to his argument in an earlier form ("The Import of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis") I quote part of the abstract which says that Farmer

shows that Jesus' parables of grace are absent from Mark and "Q". This would mean that someone other than Jesus was responsible for these parables. Farmer suggests that it is inevitable that this view will be disasterous for the preacher who has used these parables as a basis for his own sermons of salvation.

Here are four more quotes:

Therefore, the first import of the Two-Gospel hypothesis is that it restores to the person in the pew the same Scriptures thatthe clergy have. Everyone is on an equal footing. The clergy do not have some esoteric or elitest advantage of knowing about some unknown document or documents not readily available to the person sitting in the pew. This is a boon to communication.

Secondly, the Two-Gospel hypothesis takes the focus off ofthe question of which Gospel is first. To speak of Matthew as first in time implies to some that Matthew is also first in importance. The Two-Gospel hypothesis avoids the difficulty of suggesting that any one Gospel is more important than any other.

But how do we fare when we, who are in the Wesleyan tradition, stand in the pulpit and face a living congregation of sinnershungry for the Gospel, and we have a two-document understanding of the Scriptures? Let us first look in the Gospel of Mark. Do we find Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son in Mark? No, it isnot in Mark. Can we find it in "Q"? No, it is not in "Q". This means it is in neither of our two earliest and most reliable sources. Why not? Immediately a question is raised which provides critical grounds for some methodological skepticism.

What difference does it make? I suggest that, for those who wish to preach the Gospel with power and a clear critical conscience, the answer is close athand, no further than the Gospel itself.

I don't really see how his reasoning works (perhaps it only works if people are already told to be afraid of what Farmer seems to have feared), but I plan to track down an article by Kloppenborg which I hope deals with questions of theological implications because I'm sure students will want to know such things. Scot McKnight (in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem) refers to "The Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem," in The Four Gospels--1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck vol 1:93-120. So far it is very difficult for me to track down!