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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types

Expand Messages
  • Matson, Mark (Academic)
    Thanks, Stephanie. Actually quite a few of us who tend to Farrer theory would grant the possibility of written sources. (and so you have two here --
    Message 1 of 55 , Feb 5, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks, Stephanie.

      Actually quite a few of us who tend to "Farrer theory" would grant the possibility of written sources. (and so you have two here -- Peterson and myself). My problem remains how to evaluate that possibility. And, as a correlary, what that does for you? to me it doesn't take one far without speculation (ala Q1, Q2, etc..) that seems to add the aura of specificity where there is none.

      But Sanders would be closer to Farrer than any other approach. (I say this as a Sanders student). Sanders is just honest enough to grant that the "real" solution might be more complex than the simple theories posit.

      Your final sentence is especially provocative. I honestly can't see why one would still argue for Q if, in fact, he or she acknowledges that Luke know Matthew. The key argument for Q rests on Luke and Matthew now knowing one another.

      mark

      Mark A. Matson
      Academic Dean
      Milligan College
      http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm

      ________________________________

      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com on behalf of stephanie fisher
      Sent: Thu 2/5/2009 8:00 PM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: 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.

      Stephanie Fisher
      Nottingham


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Jeff Peterson
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      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.


      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?
      >




      [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.