Re: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types
- Yes I understand that but I don't recall any 'Farrer' theorist ever conceding "written sources", not counting pre Jesus Jewish scripture. They may not have ruled them out specifically but is that not just because they do not discuss them? Written sources are not necessary for their theories which do however concede oral sources. I did try asking Mark Goodacre on his blog once about sources but he never replied! ;-)
I wouldn't have included Sanders in Mark without Q (or Farrer) - he's almost strayed into a chaotic hypothesis. Are there any boundaries... Gosh - even some two source theorists concede Lukan knowledge of Matthew but do not see this as making Q redundant.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Peterson
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types
Austin Farrer held that Matthew had sources for the teaching he
incorporated into the Marcan narrative (apparently oral, though I
don't recall him ever ruling out texts). Michael Goulder and John
Drury both held that Matthew and Luke originated the vast bulk of
their non-Marcan matter, frequently via the appropriation of motifs
derived from Jewish Scripture. Ed Sanders is the Farrerian who has
been most open to the notion of written sources for Q/M/L material,
among other things supervising Ken Newport's thesis arguing for a
written source for Matt. 23.
FWIW, I think agnosticism is the most reasonable position on the
question of sources that we don't have in hand.
Austin Graduate School of Theology
On Feb 5, 2009, at 5:46 PM, stephanie fisher wrote:
> 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
> 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
> > Bruce,
> > Sorry to take one more stab at this, but I'm doing so because you
> > 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
> > is formatically different from Mt and Lk.
> > Would you agree to the above statement and make the implicit
> > Rev. Chuck Jones
> > Atlanta, Georiga
> > __________________________________
> > Bruce wrote:
> > "...2SH is the dominant Synoptic theory of our time, and it is
> > that most of the
> > listable alternatives, for which see conveniently Stephen Carlson's
> > http://www.mindspri ng.com/~scarlson /synopt/, involve Markan
> > nonpriority....
> > "...Griesbach (2GH), or another Synoptic theory (Augustinian,
> > 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
> 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]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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]