Re: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types
- My suggestion is really that there are alot of "active NT specialists" who think that the solution to the synoptic problem is more complicated than any of the three main solutions ((neo)Griesbach, Two Source and Mark without Q. These scholars may think the problem is 'unsolveable' because while "Q" (a single written Greek document) is unrealistic, so too are no sources at all or even just oral sources. For example where did Matthew get his tradition from on either a Matthew or Mark priority hypothesis? Either he made it all up or he had sources. I suggest that many think there must have been at least some written sources. My inspiration for this suggestion is the grapevine.
The three 'main' hypotheses were represented at the 2008 Oxford synoptic conference, including neo-Griesbach (and even the chaotic hypothesis). Of course even the Pope believes in Matthean priority. (as well as the chaotic hypothesis), so none has been discarded.
----- Original Message -----
From: E Bruce Brooks
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types
On: Theory Types
To my suggestion, that the great majority of those who hold opinions about
the matter prefer either (1) a Synoptic theory which puts Q first or (2) a
Synoptic theory which puts Mark nonfirst, with only a tiny segment in favor
of FGH, which puts Mark first without Q also present, we had:
COMMENT: I suggest that a lot of scholars do not in fact go along with
either of these theory types.
BRUCE: No NT introduction known to me, of book, chapter, or paragraph
length, and whether pro- or anti-2SH, fails to mention that 2SH is the
dominant Synoptic theory of our time, and it is obvious that most of the
listable alternatives, for which see conveniently Stephen Carlson's
involve Markan nonpriority. Whence my previous suggestion.
But within certain limits, it would be easy to test this impression
directly. The mechanics of this list are such that its moderators can poll
its members, individually and anonymously, on any desired question, and
announce the result. Let them, if they too have doubts about the statement
in question, offer the approximately 200 members of Synoptic-L the following
1. I accept 2SH, or another Synoptic theory (Weisse-Holtzmann, 4SH, 3SH,
Streeter, Koester, Parker I, etc) which makes Q as early or earlier than
2. I accept Griesbach (2GH), or another Synoptic theory (Augustinian,
Büsching, Jerusalem, Lindsey, de Wette, Marsh, Parker II, etc) which makes
Mark later than Matthew and/or Luke
3. I accept FGH or another theory which puts Mark earlier than both Matthew
and Luke but without Q
It might be expected, given the genesis and present leadership of this list,
that the FGH component would be higher in that result than it might be
expected to be in the general population. But the results might still be
relevant. Let it be undertaken, if anyone up there thinks there would be a
use for it.
Stephen himself, on the page above cited, calls 2SH "dominant," and lists
Griesbach (in America) and FGH (in England) as its main alternatives. Is he,
on reflection, disposed to change those characterizations?
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1926 - Release Date: 30/01/2009 5:31 p.m.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]