Having returned from the four day centennial Oxford Synoptic Conference recalling William Sanday’s synoptic conferences a hundred years ago, I see that Mark Goodacre must have been sneaking off to his room in order to blog a very sensible and comprehensive day to day account. My laptop, like me, detests British Rail so I figured if I left it in Nottingham, it might be kinder to me in the future. Also, anticipated is the publication of a book celebrating the conference with all the papers included (ironically Chris Tuckett was surprised at first drinks with the announcement that this will be a Feschrift honouring him so that he will effectively be contributing to his own Feschrift!) Consequently, what follows is superfluous drivel fit only for the consumption of anyone with nothing better to do.
When the BBC promised snowy “spring” days ahead my heart sank … but clear blue skies (and crisp icy air which slices into the bones) greeted us each day.
This conference was a major one for me as my thesis is “The Problem with Q” and the synoptic problem has been my obsession for far more years than I have been enrolled. There were less than 40 bodies in attendance, a nice size, conducive to more inclusion in discussion of lesser beings, namely me. Mainly men, Kathleen Corley disappeared after her paper. That suits me and I don’t care or see my interest in the historical Jesus or the synoptic problem as anything significant, nor do I think men find themselves in Jesus any more than I do (but don’t). While the papers were for the most part mainly restatements of each author’s own published material, repeating flaws and frustrations, projected with confidence and doubt, it was the discussions between papers and conversations afterwards especially at meals and drinks, where barriers were lowered and formality slipped, and the most interesting things were revealed and developed. Or just things like John Kloppenborg said he doesn’t like talking about reality. The papers represented fairness to all three major hypotheses and were presented by today’s top dogs, with contributors from Peabody to Kloppenborg to Goodacre and the more complex approach to the synoptic solution had Maurice Casey in the company. This reminds me of something absent however, proper recognition of work done on possible Aramaic sources, the language that Jesus spoke after all. I wonder how many at the conference read Aramaic. Peabody said he didn’t when I asked him at breakfast. However I wanted to sing along to the paper in German. Luckily for me it won’t affect my thesis greatly if I haven’t understood it – academic German, for me, is better read at snail pace with a dictionary.
By this coarse wee Kiwi’s standards, meals were impressively posh – with conversation breaking ancient Oxford tradition by overflowing from the fascinating trivia into scholarship, inevitably. Of the fascinating trivia, David Dungan said he had prayed that Orchard’s Synopsis would be the death of him, when Orchard and Farmer had split up over it as the synopsis was detrimental to everyone’s hypothesis including theirs, and I poked Peter Head into a very interesting conversation about the virgin birth… He was, like Bill Loader, very nice and very – Australian! And Gerald Downing says that the bath is the only place to eat an orange. Chris Tuckett is a trained mathematician, plays piano every day and is an absolutely lovely man. It was helpful meeting the people whose work I try to demolish (not necessarily those above), to discover that they are really nice so I must put things in perspective and be kinder – or not. The food was consumed in the great Hall with a ceiling as high as the Sistine Chapel (exaggeration for colour) and was served by a wonderful team of waiting staff who took great care of everybody. Dennis McDonald toasted them on the last night, saying how nice it was that they did their job unnoticed, reminding me of ancient English snobbery reinforcing class divisions. I couldn’t resist a squeal of resentment. The meals were – well, breathtaking for a conference: three course dinners, white linen on the first night (probably two many wine stains to repeat that), silver candle sticks, table flower arrangements, wine(s) and the traditional Oxford port, passed round and round (but not across) the table … no snuff or cigars though. They catered for and honoured the special needs of vegies including the rather odd fruiterian … so that I am eternally grateful (exquisitely carved melon with orange spirals and berries not needing a bath).
The rooms with ensuites were huge, warm (when I turned the heating all the way up) and furnished with things like mahogany or walnut antiques, TVs, microwaves, fridges and mine had a beautiful piano (the room belonged to a musician). I play, but not well – I should have invited Chris Tuckett or Maurice Casey to play.
The final Plenary included discussion on proposed conformity to titles of the main synoptic solutions. On the Mark without Q hypothesis they were coming down in favour of the Farrer Hypothesis or FH although Mark Goodacre himself was absent. Personally I think conforming to a consensus is both restricting and submitting to a concept more preferably avoided in this subset of the discipline and each contributor should use a name according to his take on a hypothesis with an explanation. Let the reader understand. But if anything, I think that the Mark with Q hypothesis should be called the Goodacre Hypothesis as Farrer was wrong, Goulder hardline and Goodacre’s articulation of the solution appeals to the more wider rational thinking audience – i.e. it incorporates a little more fluidity that Goulder’s solution.
The whole conference was a very smooth operation thanks to the organisation of people such as Andrew Gregory. Sadly Michael Goulder wasn’t there. And annoyingly for me, neither was Harry Fleddermann.
Stephanie Fisher
