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

10501RE: [GTh] Authorship and Dating GTh

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    Feb 6, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      To: GThos
      In Comment on: a remark of Rick Hubbard
      From: Bruce

      I recently posted a comment on methodology with texts, not much at variance
      with much of what Rick says in his most recent post. At one point, however,
      I think a correction might be in order.

      Tom Reynolds: . . . So, scholars conclude that Matthew/Luke is dependent on
      Mark (and a Q document) . . .

      Rick [Addressing Tom]: Have you heard of the Farrer theory? How about the
      Griesbach hypothesis? What do you make of Mark Goodacre's book, The Case
      Against Q?

      Bruce: I, for one, have heard of these and other theories. But if we fairly
      survey the recent NT scene, I cannot think that it is objectionable to
      describe the consensus as Markan Priority Plus Q.

      Other stuff is certainly out there, but at the fringes. It is true that the
      fringes have been getting a lot of play at recent SBL meetings. Matthean
      Priority (Griesbach), Johannine Priority, the 2nd century Luke; you name it,
      and SBL 2013 has a panel devoted to it. That is a fact with its own
      historical basis, a basis which it would perhaps be indiscreet to examine
      here.

      As for Farrer (or Farrer-Goulder) in particular, I suggest looking at
      Michael Goulder's last writings. In them he speaks of convincing his
      colleagues as a matter in the possible future tense. He does not speak of
      that theory as having conquered the world of NT scholarship, or even as
      having a secure position of acceptance within a substantial part of it. That
      other persons since Michael died (2010) have continued to explore it, and
      even advocate it, is true. But that truth probably does not overturn
      Michael's own sense of how far FG had progressed, in the academy of his day.

      If MkG, who is present, has a different sense of the state of the balance of
      present-day NT opinion, he is perhaps the right person to give it. Pending
      which, Mk/Q strikes me as a fair description of what most NT persons who
      think about the matter at all, actually think.

      Not that the majority, or even the consensus (presumably a supermajority)
      need be correct. My 7th grade civics teacher used to surprise the class by
      saying, The majority are always wrong. But that is a different question than
      what the majority opinion IS.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic