5957Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke knew Matthew: Three versions
- Apr 11, 2001Thanks Mark,
this is really helpful (and interesting).
>On 10 Apr 2001, at 18:05, Peter M. Head wrote:Dr. Peter M. Head
>> Thanks Mark for your helpful notes. Are there any interesting
>> non-scientific commonalities among the British representatives of the
>> Farrer-Goulder theory? Oxford is one. Did they all go to the same
>> school or something?
>I think Oxford is one -- Farrer taught Goulder there in the 1950s and
>John Muddiman in the 1960s. Franklin was at St Stephen's House
>and was my tutor in the 1980s; Muddiman was my doctoral
>supervisor in the 1990s. John Drury was chaplain of Exeter
>College (which, as it happens, was my college too) in the 1970s,
>across the road from Trinity where Goulder was giving his
>Speakers' Lectures published as _Midrash and Lection in
>Matthew_ in 1974 (cf. the preface to Drury's 1976 _Tradition and
>Design in Luke's Gospel_). E. P. Sanders was Dean Ireland
>professor at Oxford in the 1980s, and it was while there that he
>published (with Margaret Davies) his most Farrer-friendly piece,
>_Studying the Synoptic Gospels_ (1989). I can't fit Benedict Green
>in here. I wonder if he was taught by Farrer too? I'll have to ask
>No, I don't think the same school comes into it. They are all posh
>(e.g. Goulder went to Eton) whereas I was just an ordinary bod who
>went to the local comprehensive school in the East Midlands.
>There's a minor Birmingham link too. Goulder has spent most of
>his academic career in the University of Birmingham until his
>retirement in 1994. Farrer was a Cadbury lecturer here in 1953-4
>(and the book is _St Matthew and St Mark_). Margaret Davies was
>an undergraduate here in the late '50s, early '60s. I've been here
>since 1995 for my short career so far. Ed Sanders was the
>Cadbury lecturer here last year!
>However, there are now those who have no link with any of this who
>are becoming Q sceptics simply because they are looking carefully
>at the evidence : )
>> I'm not meaning to ignore your comment by the
>> way, it is just that Farrer theory is much less clear than
>> Farrer-Goulder (which non-advocates have been using for a while).
>> Should advocates be given automatic rights of self-identification?
>No, but they should be given a hearing if the existing usage is in
>some way potentially misleading. There are several problems with
>the term "Farrer-Goulder": (1) it marginalises the contributions of
>key figures like John Drury and Eric Franklin; (2) it tacitly suggests
>that the theory of Marcan Priority + Luke's use of Matthew
>necessarily involves Goulder's take on it, including the implausible
>theory of no additional sources. Drury and Franklin each contribute
>something of key importance unrepresented by Goulder: Drury's
>stress on Luke as a literary artist picks up on Farrer's stress on
>the same and is a useful antidote to Goulder's fundamentally
>source- / redaction- critical approach. Franklin stresses Luke's
>critical attitude to Matthew alongside a rejection of Goulder's no-
>extra-sources view. If in spite of these considerations, one still
>thinks that "Farrer-Goulder" is the best description
>> The alternative problem is that much of the evidence is somewhat
>> similar. It is hard to imagine any discussion not being very
>> repetitious. Anyway I'll worry about later.
>Some of it is, but I suppose that my point was that the fundamental
>agreement between Farrer & Two-Source on Marcan Priority
>renders these rather different theses than Griesbach.
>Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
>List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
36 Selwyn Gardens
Cambridge CB3 9BA
Tel: 01223 566607
Fax: 01223 566608
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic