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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types

Expand Messages
  • poirier
    Steph, For some reason, Farrer proponents (of which I am one) have stayed away from the question of Matthew s source(s) for the sayings. A few years ago, I
    Message 1 of 55 , Feb 5, 2009
      For some reason, Farrer proponents (of which I am one) have
      stayed away from the question of Matthew's source(s) for
      the sayings.
      A few years ago, I suggested on this list that Matthew
      probably had a sayings source, and that the only aspect of
      the Q hypothesis that the Farrer hypothesis should oppose
      is the supposition that Matthew and Luke both had *direct,
      independent* access to the sayings source. (Of course,
      without that supposition, it isn't really "Q".) IIRC,
      Matson gave me the only "amen" when I made that suggestion.
      John C. Poirier
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: stephanie fisher
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 6:46 PM
      Subject: [SPAM] Re: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types

      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).

      Stephanie Fisher
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Matson, Mark (Academic)
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      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

      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
      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

      > -----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
      > Bruce,
      > 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
      > nonpriority....
      > "...Griesbach (2GH), or another Synoptic theory
      > Büsching, Jerusalem, Lindsey, de Wette, Marsh, Parker
      II, etc) ...
      > makes
      > Mark later than Matthew and/or Luke....
      > "Stephen himself, on the page above cited, calls 2SH
      "dominant," and
      > lists
      > Griesbach (in America) and FGH (in England) as its main
      > [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]

      #ygrp-mkp { BORDER-RIGHT: #d8d8d8 1px solid;
      PADDING-RIGHT: 14px; BORDER-TOP: #d8d8d8 1px solid;
      PADDING-LEFT: 14px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 14px 0px;
      BORDER-LEFT: #d8d8d8 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px;
      BORDER-BOTTOM: #d8d8d8 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Arial }
      #ygrp-mkp HR { BORDER-RIGHT: #d8d8d8 1px solid; BORDER-TOP:
      #d8d8d8 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #d8d8d8 1px solid;
      BORDER-BOTTOM: #d8d8d8 1px solid } #ygrp-mkp #hd {
      FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 85%; MARGIN: 10px 0px; COLOR:
      #628c2a; LINE-HEIGHT: 122% } #ygrp-mkp #ads {
      MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px } #ygrp-mkp .ad { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px;
      #ygrp-mkp .ad A { COLOR: #0000ff; TEXT-DECORATION: none }

      [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

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