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

Re: [Synoptic-L] One of Histories Little Ironies

Expand Messages
  • Steph Fisher
    Hi Mark, Farmer (The Synoptic Problem, p. 196) refers Farrer s agreement, in that review, with Butler s argument that the critical basis for Q was
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 20, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Mark,

      Farmer (The Synoptic Problem, p. 196) refers Farrer's agreement, in that
      review, with Butler's argument that the critical basis for Q was
      "unconvincing".

      I see the dates are very close between Butler's book and Farrer's review ...
      had Farrer really not even read Butler's book (albeit an unpublished
      manuscript) when he wrote the agreeable review or was Michael Goulder being
      naughty and mean that Farrer wrote it before he saw the manuscript as a
      published book?

      Steph Fisher
      moving to Nottingham University

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Mark Goodacre" <Goodacre@...>
      To: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
      Cc: "David Barrett Peabody" <dbpeabody@...>;
      <synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:26 PM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] One of History's little ironies!


      > David,
      >
      > Many thanks for that interesting insight. I had read the review myself a
      > few years ago, eager to find clues on the history of the development of
      > Farrer's own thought on the Synoptic Problem. I wondered whether the
      > Butler
      > book might have acted as a direct stimulus to Farrer in dispensing with Q,
      > but I don't think it did. Michael Goulder mentioned to me that Farrer's
      > article was written before Butler's book was published, or at least before
      > Farrer saw it. The essay in which Farrer's article appeared was
      > originally
      > intended as a Festschrift for R. H. Lightfoot and not an "in memoriam",
      > and
      > the articles were mostly collected by the early 50s.
      >
      > All best
      > Mark


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... Hi Steph. Thanks for that. I don t know, but let me throw one other thing into the mix. Farrer s St Matthew and St Mark was published in 1951, the same
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 20, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 20/06/06, Steph Fisher <steph7@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Mark,
        >
        > Farmer (The Synoptic Problem, p. 196) refers Farrer's agreement, in that
        > review, with Butler's argument that the critical basis for Q was
        > "unconvincing".
        >
        > I see the dates are very close between Butler's book and Farrer's review
        > ...
        > had Farrer really not even read Butler's book (albeit an unpublished
        > manuscript) when he wrote the agreeable review or was Michael Goulder
        > being
        > naughty and mean that Farrer wrote it before he saw the manuscript as a
        > published book?
        >

        Hi Steph. Thanks for that. I don't know, but let me throw one other thing
        into the mix. Farrer's St Matthew and St Mark was published in 1951, the
        same year as Butler's book, and in the introduction Farrer talks -- briefly
        -- about how he has never found the Q hypothesis necessary or helpful in
        expounding Matthew's relationship with Mark. I don't have the book in front
        of me, but I recall Farrer saying that he had not been able to find Q
        plausible "try as I might". I must admit to some sympathy with that
        approach. I have always found Q an attractive hypothesis, but try as I
        might, I simply don't believe it. It's hard being a sceptic.

        Mark

        --
        Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
        Associate Professor
        Duke University
        Department of Religion
        314 Gray Bldg./Box 90964
        Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
        Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

        http://NTGateway.com/goodacre


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Steph Fisher
        Hi Mark, Thanks ...but Farrer didn t try very hard to believe in Q! In 1955 in his On Dispensing... he claimed that to postulate Q was to postulate the
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 21, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Mark,

          Thanks ...but Farrer didn't try very hard to believe in Q! In 1955 in his
          "On Dispensing..." he claimed that to postulate Q was to postulate the
          unique - despite the fact that Thomas had been recently discovered. At
          least Kloppenborg (Excavating Q, p. 347) complains that his argument is
          specious because gospels weren't plentiful anyway and Thomas had been around
          for a while in fragments at least.

          I like that quote "try as I might" - I've got "St Matthew and St Mark" in
          front of me now. I can't remember that remark but I'm about to look for it.

          Yes ... life was pretty when I believed in "Q" - the text without the
          manuscript as Ron Cameron put it. It got a bit confusing with all the
          reconstructions and communities though!

          Best wishes,
          steph
          to be at Notts
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Mark Goodacre" <Goodacre@...>
          To: "Steph Fisher" <steph7@...>
          Cc: <synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:29 PM
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] One of Histories Little Ironies


          > On 20/06/06, Steph Fisher <steph7@...> wrote:
          >>
          >> Hi Mark,
          >>
          >> Farmer (The Synoptic Problem, p. 196) refers Farrer's agreement, in that
          >> review, with Butler's argument that the critical basis for Q was
          >> "unconvincing".
          >>
          >> I see the dates are very close between Butler's book and Farrer's review
          >> ...
          >> had Farrer really not even read Butler's book (albeit an unpublished
          >> manuscript) when he wrote the agreeable review or was Michael Goulder
          >> being
          >> naughty and mean that Farrer wrote it before he saw the manuscript as a
          >> published book?
          >>
          >
          > Hi Steph. Thanks for that. I don't know, but let me throw one other
          > thing
          > into the mix. Farrer's St Matthew and St Mark was published in 1951, the
          > same year as Butler's book, and in the introduction Farrer talks --
          > briefly
          > -- about how he has never found the Q hypothesis necessary or helpful in
          > expounding Matthew's relationship with Mark. I don't have the book in
          > front
          > of me, but I recall Farrer saying that he had not been able to find Q
          > plausible "try as I might". I must admit to some sympathy with that
          > approach. I have always found Q an attractive hypothesis, but try as I
          > might, I simply don't believe it. It's hard being a sceptic.
          >
          > Mark
          >
          > --
          > Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
          > Associate Professor
          > Duke University
          > Department of Religion
          > 314 Gray Bldg./Box 90964
          > Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
          > Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530
          >
          > http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Chuck Jones
          Mark, The below quote doesn t seem surprising to me as the Q hypothesis addresses the double tradition in Mt and Lk. Am I missing something? Chuck Mark
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 21, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Mark,

            The below quote doesn't seem surprising to me as the Q hypothesis addresses the double tradition in Mt and Lk. Am I missing something?

            Chuck

            Mark Goodacre wrote:
            Farrer's St Matthew and St Mark was published in 1951, the
            same year as Butler's book, and in the introduction Farrer talks -- briefly
            -- about how he has never found the Q hypothesis necessary or helpful in
            expounding Matthew's relationship with Mark.


            .




            ---------------------------------
            Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2ยข/min or less.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mark Goodacre
            ... I think he found the Q hypothesis difficult to square with the kind of creative interpretation and expansion of Mark that Farrer saw in Matthew. To take
            Message 5 of 5 , Jun 21, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On 21/06/06, Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:
              >
              > The below quote doesn't seem surprising to me as the Q hypothesis addresses
              > the double tradition in Mt and Lk. Am I missing something?
              >
              > Mark Goodacre wrote:
              >
              > Farrer's St Matthew and St Mark was published in 1951, the
              > same year as Butler's book, and in the introduction Farrer talks -- briefly
              > -- about how he has never found the Q hypothesis necessary or helpful in
              > expounding Matthew's relationship with Mark.

              I think he found the Q hypothesis difficult to square with the kind of
              creative interpretation and expansion of Mark that Farrer saw in
              Matthew. To take one early example, Matthew 3 would be Matthew's
              creative expansion of Mark 1, drawing in typical Matthean language and
              themes rather than Matthew's conflation of Mark and Q.

              Mark
              --
              Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
              Associate Professor
              Duke University
              Department of Religion
              314 Gray Bldg./Box 90964
              Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
              Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

              http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.