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

Goulder gets no respect?

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    I was recently reading Craig L. Blomberg, JESUS & THE GOSPELS: An Introduction & Survey (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1997), with much attention on the
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 31, 1998
      I was recently reading Craig L. Blomberg, JESUS & THE GOSPELS: An
      Introduction & Survey (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1997),
      with much attention on the Synoptic Problem. In one of the
      argument for Markan priority on page 90, Blomberg writes:

      "9. When one assumes that Matthew and Luke each redacted
      Mark, consistent patterns of theological emphasis emerge;
      on other theories, the patterns of editorial activity prove
      favor less consistent. n.27
      ----
      n.27 For proof, one has but to read those who trided. Most
      notably, in defense of the Augustinian model, see Michael D.
      Goulder, LUKE: An New Paradigm, 2 vols. (Sheffield: JSOT,
      1989); following Griesbach, see C. S. Mann, MARK (Garden City:
      Doubleday, 1986)."

      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?

      By the way, I noticed another error on the same page. Blomberg
      attributed the creation of the Q symbol to Schleiermacher. While
      Schleiermacher's interpretation of Papias did much to persuade
      many of the existence of a Q-like sayings source, the signum Q is
      best attributed to J. Weiss about 60 years later.

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    • Claudio Ettl
      ... Just a short addition: The signum Q indeed first appears in Johannes Weiss, Die Verteidigung Jesu gegen den Vorwurf des Bündnisses mit Beelzebul, in:
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 1, 1998
        On 31/10/1998 Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

        > I was recently reading Craig L. Blomberg, JESUS & THE GOSPELS: An
        > Introduction & Survey (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1997),
        > with much attention on the Synoptic Problem.
        >
        > By the way, I noticed another error on the same page. Blomberg
        > attributed the creation of the Q symbol to Schleiermacher. While
        > Schleiermacher's interpretation of Papias did much to persuade
        > many of the existence of a Q-like sayings source, the signum Q is
        > best attributed to J. Weiss about 60 years later.

        Just a short addition:
        The signum "Q" indeed first appears in Johannes Weiss, Die Verteidigung
        Jesu gegen den Vorwurf des Bündnisses mit Beelzebul, in: ThStKr 63
        (1890) 557.
        The first scholar, however, to use "Q" as a terminus technicus for the
        Sayings Source is - as far as I can see - Paul Wernle in his work "Die
        synoptische Frage" (Freiburg 1899). On page 44 he writes: "Die -
        hypothetische - Quelle sei mit Q bezeichnet." It seems that in the wake
        of this designation the letter "Q" became the common siglum for the
        Sayings Source.
        Nevertheless, there is no evidence for an attribution to Schleiermacher.

        Claudio Ettl
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        ... Stephen, I hate to say this, since I ve had dealings with Craig Blomberg, and he seems a decent sort of fellow -- but his Jesus book is not the epitome of
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 1, 1998
          Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
          >
          > I was recently reading Craig L. Blomberg, JESUS & THE GOSPELS: An
          > Introduction & Survey (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1997),
          > with much attention on the Synoptic Problem. In one of the
          > argument for Markan priority on page 90, Blomberg writes:
          >
          > "9. When one assumes that Matthew and Luke each redacted
          > Mark, consistent patterns of theological emphasis emerge;
          > on other theories, the patterns of editorial activity prove
          > favor less consistent. n.27
          > ----
          > n.27 For proof, one has but to read those who trided. Most
          > notably, in defense of the Augustinian model, see Michael D.
          > Goulder, LUKE: An New Paradigm, 2 vols. (Sheffield: JSOT,
          > 1989); following Griesbach, see C. S. Mann, MARK (Garden City:
          > Doubleday, 1986)."
          >
          > 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?
          >
          > By the way, I noticed another error on the same page. Blomberg
          > attributed the creation of the Q symbol to Schleiermacher. While
          > Schleiermacher's interpretation of Papias did much to persuade
          > many of the existence of a Q-like sayings source, the signum Q is
          > best attributed to J. Weiss about 60 years later.
          >
          Stephen,

          I hate to say this, since I've had dealings with Craig Blomberg, and he
          seems a decent sort of fellow -- but his Jesus book is not the epitome
          of careful scholarship. For instance, when he discusses the wilderness
          "temptation" narratives he cites me as backing up a position which I
          argued *against*! So I came away from what little I read thinking that,
          at least in some instances, Craig only glanced at the secondary
          literature and did not read it very carefully.

          Yours,

          Jeffrey Gibson
          > --
          > Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          > Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
          > "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

          --
          Jeffrey B. Gibson
          7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
          Chicago, Illinois 60626
          e-mail jgibson000@...
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Stephen Carlson asked - ... Could the cause be mild dyslexia amongst synoptic scholars? The danger arises because it is so easy to change Farrer s Mark copying
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 1, 1998
            Stephen Carlson asked -

            >Why is Goulder and the Farrer Hypothesis the Rodney Dangerfield of
            >synoptic source criticism?
            >
            Could the cause be mild dyslexia amongst synoptic scholars? The danger
            arises because it is so easy to change Farrer's Mark copying from
            Matthew to Augustine's Matthew copying from Mark - or is it the other
            way round?

            Best Wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk

            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
          • Mark Goodacre
            ... I suppose that this means that we are coming up to Q s 100th birthday? Sounds like it s getting a bit old -- perhaps on its last legs? : ) A little more
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 2, 1998
              On 1 Nov 98 at 15:27, Claudio Ettl wrote:

              > The signum "Q" indeed first appears in Johannes Weiss, Die Verteidigung
              > Jesu gegen den Vorwurf des Bündnisses mit Beelzebul, in: ThStKr 63
              > (1890) 557.
              > The first scholar, however, to use "Q" as a terminus technicus for the
              > Sayings Source is - as far as I can see - Paul Wernle in his work "Die
              > synoptische Frage" (Freiburg 1899). On page 44 he writes: "Die -
              > hypothetische - Quelle sei mit Q bezeichnet." It seems that in the wake
              > of this designation the letter "Q" became the common siglum for the
              > Sayings Source.
              > Nevertheless, there is no evidence for an attribution to Schleiermacher.

              I suppose that this means that we are coming up to Q's 100th birthday? Sounds
              like it's getting a bit old -- perhaps on its last legs? : )

              A little more bibliography for anyone interested:

              Frans Neirynck, "The Symbol Q (=Quelle), ETL 54 (1978), pp. 119-25
              Frans Neirynck, "Once More: The Symbol Q", ETL 55 (1979), pp. 382-3.
              Frans Neirynck, "Note on the Siglum Q", _Evangelica_ II (BETL 99; Leuven:
              Leuven University Press, 1991), p. 474.

              Mark
              -------------------------------------------
              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
            • Mark Goodacre
              ... 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
              Message 6 of 6 , 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
                examples):

                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.

                Mark
                -------------------------------------------
                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
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.