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

1264Re: Goulder gets no respect?

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Nov 2, 1998
      On 31 Oct 98 at 22:00, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

      > Although Goulder's view of Luke's use of Mark and Matthew bears some
      > similarities to the AH, one has but to read Goulder's LUKE to know
      > that Goulder is not an Augustinian about Markan priority. Why is
      > Goulder and the Farrer Hypothesis the Rodney Dangerfield of synoptic
      > source criticism?

      The Blomberg quotation is quite remarkable (cf. the little thread on it on
      Synoptic-L beginning 18 May). It demonstrates that Goulder's critique of the Q
      theory has not made the impact on scholarship that it might have done,
      particularly in America, because of ignorance. This becomes clear also from
      the Patterson review of Tuckett I mentioned recently, describing Goulder's view
      as "more obscure" than neo-Griesbach. Consider also (among many other

      Helmut Koester, _Ancient Christian Gospels_, p. 130: "All attempts to disprove
      the two-source hypothesis favor the priority of Matthew or some earlier form of
      Matthew which was possibly written in Aramaic"

      Arland Jacobson, _The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q_, pp. 5-6, "The
      Griesbach hypothesis has succeeded in establishing itself as the only real
      alternative to the Two Document Hypothesis." (cf. p. 17, "Of these six [viz.
      possible direct-copying relationships among the Synoptics], only one has any
      considerable scholarly support today, namely the Griesbach hypothesis.")

      While I do find this kind of ignorance of the Farrer theory surprising, I do
      not think that there is any point in whinging about it. For did not the
      apostle say, How are they to believe in something of which they have
      never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim it? I
      suspect that the ignorance is due to a variety of factors, not least among
      which is that the Farrer theory did not market itself very well in North
      America at a time when the Q theory had begun to take on a life of its own, and
      when neo-Griesbachian scholars were organising themselves and marketing
      their theories successfully.

      Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
      Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre


      Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic