Mark Matson (Academic)
I'm not sure why that was directed to me as well. I don't know what you mean by "significant". While Goulder was hardline in his proposal that Luke used Matthew, Goodacre articulated the theory in a more realistic way by conceding the possibility of some oral sources as for example with the Lord's Prayer. However I am not aware of the Mark without Q theory conceding the possibility of written sources and surely conceding the possibility of an oral Lord's Prayer is speculative anyway? Isn't this why oral sources are not a "significant" feature in the Mark without Q theory?
(it's Fisher by the way).
----- Original Message -----
From: Matson, Mark (Academic)
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 5:21 PM
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types
Actually, Chuck, my argument was not that Mark has no sources. (though I don't think he had written sources because I think Mark is an original composition). Rather, my argument with you was primarily with your rationale, your argumentation. I did not find your reasons convincing.
With those of the Griesbach hypothesis, my engagement turns in a very different way. While we disagree (as with my discussions with David Dungan, for instance), the basis for our disagreement was very clear.
To be specific about what I think (and we could use that as a basis for discussion):
1. It think Mark is an original composition based on oral sources, some of which may have been eyewitness accounts.
2. I think Matthew used Mark, supplemented by oral sources. Maybe a written source, but if so that is unrecoverable.
3. I think Luke used Mark and Matthew, supplemented by oral sources. And may have known and engaged John.
To my mind (and Stephanie Fischer this may be directed to you as well), Farrer theorists do not usually dispute significant additional sources (e.g. oral traditions). And do not rule out-of-hand written sources. But there is a tendency to not rely on sources that are speculative, and especially reject a common written source that both Luke and Matthew used, since the basis for that is tenuous.
And as Ed Sanders pointed out many years ago, the real situation is indeed probably very complex, and involves re-oralization, developing readings and liturgy in churches, etc. But that shouldn't stop us from trying to figure it out.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Chuck Jones
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:47 AM
> To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types
> Sorry to take one more stab at this, but I'm doing so because you never
> responded to this observation:
> Implicit in posts from you and Mark Matson, the Griesbach hypothesis or
> any other version of Markan non-priority is not possible. You argued
> that it is obvious that Mark (1) was not written from sources and (2)
> is formatically different from Mt and Lk.
> Would you agree to the above statement and make the implicit explicit?
> Rev. Chuck Jones
> Atlanta, Georiga
> Bruce wrote:
> "...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
> http://www.mindspri ng.com/~scarlson /synopt/, involve Markan
> "...Griesbach (2GH), or another Synoptic theory (Augustinian,
> Büsching, Jerusalem, Lindsey, de Wette, Marsh, Parker II, etc) ...
> Mark later than Matthew and/or Luke....
> "Stephen himself, on the page above cited, calls 2SH "dominant," and
> Griesbach (in America) and FGH (in England) as its main alternatives."
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
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]