Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Goulder's Two Mission Hypothesis

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark Goodacre" <M.S.GOODACRE AT bham.ac.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Goulder's Two Mission Hypothesis
  • Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 10:30:16 GMT


On 5 Apr 00, at 19:42, Robert Brenchley wrote:

> >Michael convinced me of the outline of his theory years ago, but
> >you're
> right, it is a bit too neat to be true. Surely there were more than
> two groups involved; Matthew thinks a lot of Peter, takes a very
> unPauline view of the Law, but certainly isn't a follower of James, so
> where does he fit in. Was there a Peter group as well as a James
> group?

Without wanting in any way to speak for him (I am one of his severest
critics), I think he would say that in the early period the real figure of
power was indeed James. James was running the show. But at the
same time Peter was a kind of figurehead or hero. Now Goulder
locates Matthew in about 80, perhaps twenty years after James's
death, by which stage the movement had still further crystallised
around the memory of its figurehead Peter.

Further, Goulder is a confirmed Markan Priorist and he thinks that
Matthew had little in the way of extra traditions outside Mark. This
means that he inherits the basic Markan story with its focus on Peter
& the Zebedaids. Extra material on Peter is Matthew's creative
embellishment of what is already present in Mark -- he does not
introduce fresh material on James.

That's how I think he might respond to your comment.

> I see it more in terms of a movement which had a tendency to
> fragment under the pressures of the age, and moved into many of the
> various facets of Second Temple Judaism, which was extremely diverse.
> I feel that Michael tends to underestimate the Jewishness of all the
> NT
> writers; twenty-odd years between the crucifixion and Paul's first
> letters is a very short time to invent a complete theology from
> scratch! I suspect he did what we all do, and rang the changes on what
> was there already.

I think Goulder would probably agree with you there and he
would certainly not see Paul as having "invent[ed] a complete
theology from scratch" in twenty years. It think he takes for
granted that Paul shared some key elements with the earliest Christians.

In two distinctive respects Goulder has attempted to stress the
"Jewishness" of NT writers: the attempt to find parallels for the
Gospel writers' methods in Jewish authors, the Chronicler, the
midrashim, Pseudo-Philo etc.; and the attempt to ground the genesis
of the gospels in a Jewish synagogue-related lectionary / liturgical
setting.

> I also feel that Michael underestimates the apocalyptic elements in
> the NT, but then that's one of the abiding sins of the church.Or am
> I being unfair?

I'm not sure. Since Goulder is not a member of "the church" that may
or may not have this abiding sin, it's difficult to say. I'm not sure about
whether he underestimates apocalyptic elements. One of the elements
in his "Two Missions" theory is that the "not yet" emphasis of Paul
filters also into the Gospels in contrast to a "now" emphasis among
"Petrines", witnessed in 1 Cor. 4.

Mark
--------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre AT bham.ac.uk
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
The New Testament Gateway
All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
Mark Without Q
Aseneth Home Page




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page