Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types

Expand Messages
  • stephanie fisher
    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
    Message 1 of 55 , Feb 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      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.

      Stephanie Fisher

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 1:45 AM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types

      To: Synoptic
      On: Theory Types
      From: Bruce

      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]
    • Chuck Jones
        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 55 of 55 , Feb 11, 2009
      • 0 Attachment

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.