A Question Too Often Neglected

Abstract

Classical scholar T. J. Luce has highlighted an important question too often neglected by source critics:

The Roll, the Codex, the Wax Tablet and the Synoptic Problem

“…Furthermore, it is I who am following the agreed first-century model, against Downing, who is defending the standard Four-source hypothesis with its “anachronistic” conflating’ (Goulder 1993: 150). A similar correction of Downing is found in Mattila 1995: 206-207. Olson also responds to the ‘unpicking’ charge, showing that Luke’s behavior is not nearly as inexplicable as Downing’s strident rhetoric represents it to be (2004: 127-50).…”

“… 8. Olson (2004: 130) finds widespread agreement among classical scholars that ancient writers conflated their sources at a more macrostructural than microstructural level: ‘[C]onflation…was achieved by the interweaving of different episodes, what we may call “block-by-block” or “macro” conflation, rather than close conflation of different accounts of the same episode, which we may call “close” or “word-by-word” or “micro” conflation’. Mattila (1995: 205) writes, ‘It must be kept in mind that for the greater part of the Diatessaron the conflation is block-by-block, only becoming more complex when the pressure to reconcile and combine conflicting details in the parallel gospel accounts necessitates it. A similar type of conflation to that present in the majority of the Diatessaron has been observed in the Samaritan Pentateuch (dated to the end of the second century bce ) and in the proto-Samaritan Exodus manuscripts from Qumran, in which virtually intact blocks of text have been alternated in a chosen sequence.’ Derrenbacker argues that Luke’s conflation by memory in Goulder’s account of the second half of Luke’s central section is perhaps too extensive (2005: 193-98)—and that it is thus ‘functionally’ a case of micro-conflation (2005: 195)—but that criticism (as he knows) depends on one’s first accepting Goulder’s (often forced) map of Luke’s Matthean contacts in that section of his Gospel.…”

The Synoptic Problem: Where to from here?

“…It was Mattila who issued the challenge of placing the evangelists within a credible context testing current hypotheses of synoptic relationships against what is known of the practice of scribes in this period. 29 While this provides a benchmark it needs to borne in mind that the evangelists were atypical in their use and preservation of their sources. 30 The major utilization theories of synoptic relationships have been tested against what can be learned from compositional practices of the period of the formation of the gospels.…”

Synoptic Singularity? The Chronicler’s Redaction of Samuel-Kings and Gospel Composition

“…It is not just the case that the Synoptic gospels agree with each other closely; it is that they often agree closely but also diverge from each other as well. Sharon Mattila (1995) has especially drawn attention to this dynamic. Responding to Downing’s remark about the Synoptists’ and Josephus’s respect for sources, she writes,The synoptic pattern of relatively high yet markedly inconsistent verbatim agreement, varying from pericope to pericope and within individual pericopae and from the narrative material to the sayings material, appears to be somewhat of an anomaly.…”

“…If the synoptists held their sources in higher regard, how is it that this regard varies so considerably and erratically throughout their narratives? (1995: 209–210)…”