Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:04 pm
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:58 pm
Sometimes John Kloppenborg says things that baffle me (other examples available upon request).
I would be interested in such examples.
The other examples I had in mind are less about descriptions of the synoptic data and more about how he represents other (i.e., Farrer, scholarship) and may seem like (or be) pet peeves:
(1) In his review of Mark Goodacre’s The Case Against Q, Kloppenborg takes Goodacre to task for calling Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount “a rag-bag”(New Testament Studies 49 (2003) 210-236; I haven’t checked the reference in Goodacre).
If the other two assumptions could be rendered credible, the MwQH might indeed offer a plausible
accounting for Luke’s arrangement. But there are two problems. First, that Matt 6.19–7.27 is a ‘rag bag’ is repeatedly asserted but not defended beyond citing a comment of Graham Stanton.45 Such is hardly the view of most Matthean commentators: Bornkamm related the structure of Matt 6.19–7.6 to individual petitions of the Lord’s Prayer and in this is followed (with some modifications) by Lambrecht and Guelich.46 Others see the Lord’s Prayer as the centre of an extended chiastic structure (Grundmann; Luz); others still divide Matt 6.19–7.12 into one (Gnilka) or two (Hagner) topically arranged units before the concluding section (Matt 7.13–27). With an even finer analysis, Dale Allison sees Matt 6.19–34 as divided into four ‘paragraphs’ and unified by a common theme, and 7.1–12 as
the ‘structural twin’ of 6.19–34.47 Matt 7.13–27 likewise displays a deliberate structure controlled formally by the contrast of the two ways (7.13–14, 24–7) and thematically by contrast between superficial adherence to Jesus’ teaching and full adherence and the respective consequences.
Of course one might argue that Luke failed to perceive the design of Matthew’s sermon. But once editorial misperception becomes part of a scenario, the explanatory power of such a thesis is diminished.
Which of the five designs of Matthew’s Sermon that Kloppenborg lists (Bornkamm, Grundmann, Gnilka, Hagner, Allison) was the one Luke was supposed to perceive (and presumably value and preserve)? And are the scholars who perceive the other designs guilty of (perhaps non-editorial) misperception for failing to perceive Matthew’s design correctly?
(2) From the same review:
Detractors of the MwQH regularly note that Luke shows no knowledge of Matthew’s additions to Mark in the triple tradition.27 Goodacre is quick to point out that this objection is actually formulated from the perspective of the 2DH, for it ignores the Mark–Q overlaps, ‘Q’ material itself, and the minor agreements, all of which on the MwQH are materials which Matthew added to Mark and which
Luke took from Matthew.
Still, the objection cannot be evaded so easily. What the objection normally has in view are the Matthean additions to Markan pericopae in Matt 3.15; 12.5–7; 13.14–17; 14.28–31; 16.16–19; 19.9, 19b; 27.19, 24, all of which Luke lacks. Two of these offer no difficulty to the MwQH: Matt 14.28–31 (Peter’s maritime outing) and 19.9 (Matthew’s qualification of the divorce prohibition with mh; ejpi; porneiva~) are additions to Markan pericopae that Luke omits entirely. Goodacre does not comment
on the Matthean additions in 12.5–7; 13.14–17; 19.19b; 27.19, 24, and instead focuses his defence on Matthean additions to Mark at Matt 3.15 and 16.16–19.
In this case, my problem was that Kloppenborg had already directed Robert Derrenbacker’s dissertation, later published as Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic problem (2005), arguing that ancient authors followed one source for any particular passage and did not conflate different sources (i.e., one source at a time). Here he’s asking why, on the Farrer theory, Luke did not conflate Mark and Matthew by adding Matthew’s additions to Mark when he’s following his Markan source. (I gave a paper on this in the Q section at the SBL conference).
(3) This one is my personal pet peeve from Kloppenborg’s review of my contribution, “Unpicking on the Farrer Theory,” in Questioning Q, from Biblical Theology Bulletin 36 (2008) 43:
Ken Olson responds to F. Gerald Downing’s claim that Luke’s treatment of Matthew on the
MwQH does not cohere with how ancient editors worked, and claims that “unpicking sources”
—which is what Luke did on the MwQH—is not as uncommon as Downing supposes. Olson’s
treatment of Josephus, however, does not make his point, and although he cites T.J. Luce’s
analysis of Livy (Livy: The Composition of His History [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1977]), it does not appear that he has followed Luce’s argument carefully, which
seems rather to support Downing.
Kloppenborg completely misconstrues what I was arguing in the paper. I agree with Downing that ancient authors follow one source at a time and that “unpicking sources” would be an unusual procedure. I argue, however, that Downing’s claim that ancient authors looked for “common witness” in their sources to reproduce in their own work is mistaken and actually violates the one-source-at-a-time procedure and also that Downing has failed to show that Luke would have to have unpicked the Markan material from his use of Matthew in his four example pericopes. There is a large number of exceptions to his claim that Luke must have unpicked Mark from Matthew. That Luke might sometimes have followed Matthew when Matthew was following Mark and sometimes not is not an unusual procedure.
Kloppenborg’s misunderstanding may be based on one paragraph (or maybe the title?) where I point out that on the pericope level authors could be said to “unpick” when they choose to follow one source instead of another. I posed the rhetorical question of whether Luke on the 2DH had “unpicked” Mark (or Q from Mark?) when he chose to follow the Q version instead of Mark a Mark-Q overlap passage. I was not, however, defending unpicking at the micro-level and never suggested that the Farrer Theory needed to assume it. That should have been clear from the body of the paper and the conclusion.
(4) This one comes from Jeffrey Peterson. Kloppenborg criticized Michael Goulder for referring to Luke’s use of Mark as a fact (“Is there a new paradigm?” 33-34). What Goulder wrote: “Luke’s use of Mark is a fact (or generally accepted as one)” (“Is Q a Juggernaut?” 670). In The Formation of Q Kloppenborg wrote “That Matthew both conflates Mark with Q and displaces Markan stories is a matter of empirical fact,” (Formation (1987) 72; to be fair, that was before Kloppenborg started engaging with other solutions to the synoptic problem and their theoretical underpinnings).
End of rant on Kloppenborg.
Best,
Ken