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

Re: [Synoptic-L] One of History's little ironies!

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    Just a follow up note to all that I d covet your thoughts on Mt s doubling of healing and exorcism recipients. This is one of those flashing-red-light
    Message 1 of 22 , Jun 27 11:06 AM
      Just a follow up note to all that I'd covet your thoughts on Mt's doubling of healing and exorcism recipients. This is one of those flashing-red-light authorial peculiarities, like Lk's insertion of "the Holy Spirit" in places where Mt and Mk don't have it, that cries out for an explanation. Or does to me, anyway. I'm all virtual-ears.


      Rev. Chuck Jones
      Atlanta, Georgia

      Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:
      Bruce and Leonard,

      I'll take a crack at raising an issue relevant to the history of this passage. Three times in Mt healings occur to pairs of people. Two blind men are healed in Mt 9 (a story with no direct parallel in Mk or Lk), the two demoniacs are exorcised in this passage, and Mk's Blind Bartimaeus is two blind men in Mt 20.

      The demoniac and Bartimaeus stories have parallels in Mk and Lk, and in those passages there is only one person healed/exorcised.

      And nowhere in any other account of a healing or exorcism in any gospel are pairs of people healed. It is always one on one.

      The presence of Mt's "doubled persons" has been long noted as an exclusively Mttn editorial/authorial phenomenon. How best to explain its absence in Mk's and Lk's parallel accounts?


      Rev. Chuck Jones
      Atlanta, Georgia

      BRUCE: Here, it would seem, is a crux passage, something that we can get at
      philologically. Books have been written on the thesis that Luke follows and
      (according to its lights) improves Matthew, and with this finding, Leonard
      would presumably not disagree. We might then, for the moment, take that as
      granted and move on to the zone of disagreement, which would seem to be the
      relative priority of Mark and Matthew in this set of parallels.

      Would any citizen of Synoptic care to come forward with a point in support
      of a Mk > Mt directionality here? Perhaps an actual discussion of substance
      might ensue, which would be a welcome novelty on this subject.

      Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Frank Jacks
      ... I have snipped out much (even most) of David s very interesting (and most helpful) account, atopping at the temporal point reached around1958-9 to add a
      Message 2 of 22 , Jun 27 2:07 PM
        David Barrett Peabody wrote:
        > Quoting Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@... <mailto:Goodacre%40gmail.com>>:
        > > This message is forwarded on behalf of Jeff Peterson, with thanks for
        > > a fascinating addition to the current thread:
        > > (SNIP)---
        > > I was interested to read David Peabody's comment on the importance of
        > > Farrer's essay for Farmer and wonder whether David might be able to
        > > shed some light on a question I've fleetingly puzzled over. When
        > > Farmer treats Lummis in The Synoptic Problem (pp. 111–112 in the 1976
        > > ed.), he neglects to mention that Lummis remained a Marcan priorist
        > > while accounting for the Double Tradition without Q (similarly with
        > > his treatment of Simons, though he notes that Farrer held Mark was
        > > first).
        > I can't give you a reason for this unequal amount of detail given to
        > Lummis, Simons and Farrer, but it is important to note that Farmer's
        > treatment of Lummis on pp. 111-112 and Simons on 102, 108, 110, 111n.
        > and 114 fall under heading "G. A Survey of the Pre-Streeter Treatment
        > of the Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. (p. 94)
        > Since this very way of describing these phenomena is an outgrowth of
        > belief in Markan priority, it probably didn't occur to Farmer that it
        > was necessary to note that each of these scholars was a Markan
        > priorist.
        > > For Farmer himself, rejection of Q seems always to have been
        > > of a piece with rejection of Marcan priority.
        > This is not true. Here is a time-line of Bill Farmer's series of
        > conversions from an advocate of the Two Document Hypothesis, to the
        > Farrer Hypothesis, to the Augustinian Hypothesis, and finally to the
        > Griesbach Hypothesis.
        > 1. Bill was taught the Two Document Hypothesis no later than his years
        > at Union Seminary in New York, (spring of 1945-spring 1952), if not
        > before that, as an undergraduate at Occidental College (1938-1942).
        > 2. Bill began to consider the Farrer Hypothesis in the summer of 1958
        > when he first started to read Austin Farrer's "On Dispensing with Q" in
        > the office of Joachim Jeremias in Göttingen, Germany.
        > 3. Bill began to put the Farrer Hypothesis on equal footing with the
        > Augustinian hypothesis, after, reluctantly being forced by one of his
        > graduate students to read B. C. Butler's, The Originality of St.
        > Matthew, aided by reading the work of C. F. Burney, The Poetry of Our
        > Lord, to which Butler had appealed in his book, the week of 13-20
        > October 1958. On Tuesday, 20 October 1958, as a consequence of this
        > week's reading, Bill announced to his Seminar on the Synoptic Problem at
        > Drew
        > that, although they had begun the seminar with the presupposition that
        > Matthew made use of Luke as a way of testing the necessity of the "Q"
        > hypothesis and, therefore, Farrer's hypothesis, which they would
        > continue to presuppose for the balance of the seminar, from that day
        > forward, they would no longer presuppose the priority of Mark, and
        > consequently Farrer's hypothesis nor the priority of Matthew and
        > Butler's so-called Augustinian hypothesis for the balance of the
        > seminar.
        > Butler's book had sufficiently shaken Bill's confidence in the priority
        > of Mark to continue to allow himself and his students simply to
        > presuppose it.
        > 4. By the fall semester, 1959, Bill had moved from Drew to Perkins and
        > he continued to test the "Q" hypothesis with his introductory NT Greek
        > students for two more years (1959-1961).
        > However, knowing that his mind was changing on the source question, and
        > rather rapidly at that, as he carefully worked through Luke with the
        > Matthean parallels before him time and again, in testing the "Q"
        > hypothesis with his students, as early as September of 1961, Bill
        > beganto date each of his notes in his interleaved copy of the four
        > canonical
        > gospels in Greek, which he may actually have bought in Heidelberg
        > during the summer of 1958, i. e. during the same summer he first read
        > Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q" and worked night and day for two weeks,
        > testing the necessity of "Q" for himself in the same manner he later
        > did in his Drew Seminar on the Synoptic Problem begining in October of
        > 1958 and did for two more years with his Greek students at Perkins,
        > 1959-1961. There is a sticker on the inside back cover of Bill's 1953
        > bound copy of Nestle-Nestle excerpts of the canonical gospels only that
        > reads, "Buchhandlung Evangelischer Verlag
        > Jakob Comtess, Heidelberg, Hauptstr. 33." Bill was in Heidelburg having
        > discussions with the Qumran scholar, Karl Georg Kuhn [b. 1906],
        > following his visits with Jeremias that same summer of 1958 in.........
        > [snipped]
        > --
        > David Barrett Peabody
        > Professor of Religion
        > Nebraska Wesleyan University
        > 5000 St. Paul Ave.
        > Lincoln, NE 68504
        > (402) 465-2302
        > www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/dbp
        > _
        > .
        I have snipped out much (even most) of David's very interesting (and
        most helpful) account, atopping at the temporal point reached
        around1958-9 to add a personal foot-note/comment, since that is when I
        happened to be in New York City, doing
        my graduate word at Union Seminary, just across the river from New
        Jersey and Drew. I remember most vividly that Farmer came across to hold
        an informal seminar with Union's NT graduate students, to talk about his
        (then) "brand new" hypothesis about how to resolve "the synoptic problem."

        Previously, I had read Farrar's book (with great appreciation) but I was
        then not yet clear about "the Griesbach hypothesis"; I
        remember my great surprise (and interest) in his expouding to us what
        later became most familiar to everyone through his various
        talks/lectures and publications. In the light of what David has
        uncovered [by the way, how is it that you are privy to
        Farmer's note and such?!], it might well be that he was using us as a
        "sounding board" although my possibly faulty memory [as I am speaking of
        events now a half-century old!] tells me that he was not being at all
        tentative but quite positive and assured.

        Decades later, I sat in on a seminar at one of the national SBL meetings
        and heard him pretty much say what I had remembered his saying "back
        then" ... at least, no surprises. So I infer that during my first two
        years at Union Farmer had already become pretty well set about the
        hypotheses he later offered.

        Unfortunately, I can not be more precise about just when this informal
        seminar happened. If I could uncover some notes, I might well be able to
        be more precise, but where in boxes as yet unopened such might be is
        unclear. So for now, the best I can do is that it had to be at some
        point after September, 1957 (when I got to Union) and May, 1959 (after
        which Farmer was no longer at Drew).

        I must admit that I am not at all sure what (if any) light this might
        shed upon the topic under discussion but it is what I have to add,
        whether or not it helps. At least, David's "time-line" triggered a
        memory of the wonderful years I enjoyed "back then" and for this I am
        additionally grateful.


        Clive F. Jacks, Th.D.
        Professor of Religion, Emeritus
        Pikeville College
        Pikeville, KY

        (but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)

        P.S. I sent the above posting this morning and was a bit startled to
        find that it had not yet appeared - apparently, there is something I
        have not yet mastered about Yahoo's "new and improved" style, which I am
        not yet comfortable with ... and do not yet see much reason to be happy
        with, although on this last I might just be showing the difficulties
        have with change!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.