... Good point. Indeed it is well known and commonly accepted that, for example, the 2ST does not fit all of the observed facts. The reason that peopleMessage 1 of 78 , Sep 9, 1999View SourceOn 8 Sep 99, at 21:39, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
> I would like to make another point though: it is not enough toGood point. Indeed it is well known and commonly accepted that,
> propose one hypothesis that seems to fit the facts, because
> many other competing hypothesis could fit the same facts.
for example, the 2ST does not fit all of the observed facts. The
reason that people continue to believe in it is that it is held to paint a
plausible overall picture. The things that don't fit are held to be
niggling details, annoying little bits and bobs for people who like
obsessing about such things. Combined with this is the comfortable
feeling that Neirynck has probably dealt with these niggling details in a
learned article somewhere, leaving us sensible types to get on with the
important work of building on the 2ST.
Of course that is a bit of a caricature, but I think that it is not far off
the way that many Synoptic scholars' minds work. And I think that
there is something in it. After all, we might get a perfect solution to the
synoptic problem on the "puzzle" level of sorting out every little piece
of data, but this solution might be hopelessly implausible on the
general, broad-brush level. It's the great thing about the Farrer theory
-- overall plausibility combined with a fully satisfactory explanation of
all the data : )
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom
The New Testament Gateway
Mark Without Q
Aseneth Home Page
Brian Wilson wrote to Mark Goodacre - ... Jim Deardorff commented - ... Jim, Your posting was in two parts. I here answer the first part (shown above), sinceMessage 78 of 78 , Sep 15, 1999View SourceBrian Wilson wrote to Mark Goodacre -
>Jim Deardorff commented -
>I am afraid you have not explained why, on the Farrer Hypothesis,
>no synoptic gospel is usually the middle term on the level of wording.
>Do I take it that the Farrer Hypothesis cannot explain this, in fact?
>If so, is that not pretty damaging to the Farrer Hypothesis? Are you
>really stuck on this one?
>It seems you are now moving to the idea that "there is simply no doubt
>that Mark is usually the middle term" in the order of triple tradition
>material (previously you were talking in terms of "SUBSTANTIAL
>agreements of wording", or "MINOR agreements of wording", of two
>synoptic gospels against the third.) I am not at all clear what you now
>mean, I must confess.
>Are you saying that the Gospel of Mark is the middle term as regards
>order of pericopes in a way in which neither Matthew nor Luke are the
>middle term? If this is the case, could you please say in just what
>way Mark is the middle term as regards order in which Matthew and Luke
>There is the well known agreement in order between Matthew & Mark from
>Mt 12 or 13 on and Mk 6 or so on. Then there is the general agreement
>in order between Luke and Mark from Lk 4:31 and Mk 1:21 on to Lk 9:17
>and Mk 6:43. Aside from the triple tradition commencing around Lk 18,
>there is then very little agreement in order between Matthew and Luke.
>Hence Mark is the middle term here.
Your posting was in two parts. I here answer the first part (shown
above), since this keeps to the point I was making. I am answering the
second part in a different posting (and under a different subject
heading), since it goes on to a quite separate matter concerning the
Greek Notes Hypothesis and the distribution of the "double tradition" in
the synoptic gospels.
I agree with your above description of the general agreement in order
of pericopes of Mark and Matthew in the "second half" of Mark, and of
Mark and Luke in the "first half" of Mark. My question is, given these
observations, what makes Mark the "middle term" with regard to order of
pericopes in a way in which Matthew is NOT the middle term, and in which
Luke is NOT the middle term?
In other words, even if Mark is the middle term with regard to the order
of pericopes, how do you know that neither Matthew nor Luke is the
middle term also in this respect?
E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE
SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk