Since I responded to you first, I address these remarks to you; they are
meant for all who have responded to Freudian slip thus far.
1. As to Dutch scholars, yes, Maarten Menken is a Dutch Catholic scholar and
so is Huub van de Sandt. I certainly recommend Huub's work on the Didache.
Menken specializes in John.
2. Concerning Fritsch's request. We could start with the summary on "The
Synoptic Problem" by Daniel B. Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. It
was reproduced in the Synoptic-L list on 9-11-98 21:35. He offered a good
and relatively lengthy statement in favor of Markan priority. I wonder if
the directors of this list could reproduce it again. The next step could be
that opponents would make clear, point by point, where amd why Daniel
went wrong. It might be helpful to identify scholars who support
one theory or another.
cordially yours, . .
----- Original Message -----
To: <RAnderson58@...>; <Synoptic-l@...>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Freudian slip?
> In a message dated 11/7/2003 8:23:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > Although your characterization, as modified, of German scholarship
> > may be accurate, can I ask if you have read Hans-Herbert Stoldt,
> > History and Criticism of Marcan Hypothesis (1977)(English 1980)?
> > I believe Stoldt was born in Germany in 1901. It is a book
> > I think
> > you would enjoy.
> I am certainly aware of Hans-Herbert Stoldt's book and should certainly
have mentioned him as an outstanding exception within German Synoptic
scholarship. I have read in the book, though I never read it through
systematically. By the way, the Dutch scholar I was thinking of when I wrote
M.J.J. Menken was actually H. van de Sandt (if I remember the name right,
and if I have the nationality right). Menken has also done some good stuff,
though. Also, I didn't mean to omit reference to French scholarship which
has certainly produced some giants of its own. I don't mean only the earlier
twentieth century lights like Loisy, Benoit and Lagrange either. Augustin
George, for example, was a brilliant and original Lukan scholar in his own
right. Of course these French scholars, and perhaps most of the Swiss,
Dutch, and Belgian scholars to whom I alluded, also accept Markan priority.
The difference between them and the typical German scholar is that they do
not hold it with the same ideological rigor, and their work on the Gospel
texts is usually quite independent of, or relatively uninfluenced by this
particular source theory.
> Leonard Maluf
> Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
> Weston, MA
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...