perseusomega9 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:37 am
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 11:52 am
...While the 'conventional wisdom' to which I referred is based on the findings of classicists that ancient authors generally followed one source at a time...
Is this a conclusion derived from scroll use or scroll and codex?
Perseusomega 9,
After this long on the forum, I probably shouldn't be surprised that people are much more interested in the introductory clause of the sentence I wrote than in the main clause and the argument that follows it in the post. My argument in that post was that we have reason to prefer the account that can be offered by the Farrer theory to that offered by the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis that are independent of the theory that ancient authors generally followed one source at a time (though consistent with that theory).
If you want to know to which classicists I was referring, you could read my MA Thesis, which was linked in the earlier thread to which I linked:
https://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/hand ... sAllowed=y
Abstract
This thesis examines the viability of the Farrer theory of how The Gospel
According to Luke was written in light of the influential criticisms of that theory by F.G.
Downing. Downing argues that on Farrer’s theory, Luke has departed from known
compositional procedures of Graeco-Roman authors in deserting the common witness of
his sources, in picking out Matthew’s additions to Mark from Matthew’s gospel to use in
his own work, and in removing the Markan parallels from the Matthean additions that he
has picked out. This thesis will argue to the contrary that in following one of his sources
at a time rather than trying to follow both simultaneously, and in using material from his
second (Matthean) source to supplement his main (Markan) source, Farrer’s Luke appears
to be following accepted ancient compositional methods, and that he has no demonstrable
tendency to remove Markan parallels from his use of Matthew
There, I discuss the one-source-at-a-time which synoptic scholars F. G. Downing and Robert Derrenbacker find in the classicists they read (which I cite in the thesis). A more concise version of the thesis was published as Ken Olson, 'Unpicking on the Farrer Theory' in Questioning Q, edited by Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin (2004) 127-150.
In this thread, I have acknowledged that scholarship since then has increasingly acknowledged that we have examples of ancient authors conflating within episodes. It was never denied that authors used more than one source, but that they generally did not closely conflate reading of individual within episodes and even within individual lines. While we do have examples of conflation, this does not mean that we should *expect* any given ancient author to conflate his sources in any particular case and I'm not aware that anyone has argued that no ancient author followed one source at a time.
More recent bibliographical suggestions:
James Barker, 'Ancient Compositional Practices: A Reassessment' Journal of Biblical Literature 135.1 (2016) 109-121.
Abstract
Recent studies of ancient compositional practices and the Synoptic Problem have
validated the Two-Source hypothesis and challenged the “Augustinian,” Farrer–
Goulder, and Griesbach hypotheses. These studies conclude that, according to
the Two-Source hypothesis, subsequent evangelists would have adhered to the
Greco-Roman conventions of working with one source at a time and not working
backward through a text. The present essay adduces counterexamples such as the
Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever, which predates the Gospels, and
Tatian’s Diatessaron, which postdates the Gospels. Upon further examination,
simultaneously accessing multiple sources and reordering those sources were
established compositional practices in the first century. Moreover, every solution
to the Synoptic Problem necessitates such scribal conventions. Therefore, the
lesser extent of these ancient compositional practices does not privilege the Two-
Source hypothesis over its rivals.
Barker has another piece in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook to the Synoptic Gospels. I've read his piece, but I don't know when the volume will be published. Nor does Barker, for that matter.
Specifically advocating the Farrer theory (but discussing the roll vs codex issue about which you asked):
John C. Poirier, 'The Roll, the Codex, the Wax Tablet, and the Synoptic Problem, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35: 3–30 2012.
Abstract
The Farrer hypothesis, especially as defended by Michael Goulder, has often been
faulted for its supposed reliance on an anachronistic and technically impracticable
understanding of Luke’s compositional practices. A closer look at the arguments against
Farrer and Goulder, however, reveals a number of problems with this charge, including
(but not limited to) its dependence on an inadequate understanding of how works
were actually composed in antiquity. Goulder’s suggestion that Luke worked backwards
through Matthew, in particular, has received a certain amount of criticism, but that
scenario is shown here to be both technically feasible and perfectly in keeping with the
way the ancients sometimes worked. Perhaps the greatest problem with the arguments
made against the Farrer hypothesis is that they ignore Luke’s likely use of the wax
tablet as a compositional aid—a medium that would have allowed Luke to rearrange
Matthew’s material as freely as Farrerians suppose
.
Best,
Ken