Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: Burden of proof

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark Goodacre" <M.S.Goodacre AT bham.ac.uk>
  • To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Burden of proof
  • Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:43:59 -0000


On 19 Mar 2001, at 10:03, Rikki E. Watts wrote:

> Mark G's remark on Goulder is apropos. Why did Goulder use the term
> Midrash in the first place, if not because he implicitly/subconciously
> realized the need for culture coherence? I.e. plucking genres out of
> the air doesn't carry a great deal of conviction, and being able to
> use a culturally located term leant his theories some legitimacy.
> Retract the term and one begins to realize that his view of
> "extensive, creative embroidery drawing on their sources, the
> Scriptures, inference" etc. does not have a lot of, if any, cultural
> precedent, and on what I know so far makes little or no sense.

The way that Michael Goulder answered Philip Alexander was to
point out that his primary model for Matthew's creative work with
Mark was not so much the rabbis' work with Scripture as the
Chronicler's work with Sam-Kings. The chapter on "The Midrashic
Method" (_Midrash and Lection in Matthew_, Chapter 2) draws
some examples from rabbis and Targums but focuses primarily on
Chronicles. This is why, as I read it, Goulder felt able in 1989
reluctantly to withdraw the term "midrash" because he saw that it
was indeed inappropriate to the literary model with which he was
primarily working, the Chronicler. In fact in _Midrash and Lection_
Goulder did distinguish between the technical sense of "midrash"
from the second century AD and what he saw as its earlier more
general reference (p. 28).

If one wants to examine Goulder's work on the creativity of the
evangelists, it is important to note what he has retracted: the
terminology of "midrash" but not the process he attempts to
describe. This process he expounds and defends on two fronts, (1)
primarily by exegesis of the whole of Matthew (1974) and Luke
(1989) and (2) by drawing attention to other models for the way
ancients dealt with source material, especially the Chronicler. I
don't want to play down the importance of Goulder's retraction on
the terminology -- it is an important concession to Alexander's
critique (and shows, in my opinion, the right kind of scholarly
integrity that Goulder was prepared to retract one of his views in
published work) -- but it needs to be placed in context.

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
Homepage
http://www.ntgateway.com
The New Testament Gateway




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page