- ... There is a summary of Stein s arguments for Markan Priority also available on the web in Dan Wallace s article on the Synoptic Problem. You can read itMessage 1 of 37 , Nov 4, 1998View SourceOn 4 Nov 98 at 21:44, Antonio Jerez wrote:
> I think Stephen C.There is a summary of Stein's arguments for Markan Priority also available on
> Carlsson some time ago recommended R H Stein's book "The synoptic problem" as
> the best defence so far of Markan priority. Unfortunately I haven't been able
> to find that book at any library here in Sweden. But I was pleased to find a
> shorter, sixpage, essay on the Synoptic problem written by Stein in a book
> called "Jesus and the Gospels". I don't think I have ever seen the arguments
> for Markan priority put forward in such a clear, concise and lucid way in any
> other short essay about the problem.
the web in Dan Wallace's article on the Synoptic Problem. You can read it at:
It is clear and well presented but a bit dated. When one turns to Q it is
disappointing (as often) to see no engagement (or even mention of) Farrer,
Goulder, Drury, Sanders etc. This is true of Stein's book -- very little
engagement with the Farrer theory. Also there is the tendency to assume that
arguments for Markan Priority are identical with arguments for Matthew's and
Luke's independence, again all too often a feature of the literature.
Stein's book is a very useful introduction but it has I think been surpassed by
Sanders and Davies's _Studying the Synoptic Gospels_ which appeared two years
>Thanks for the reference; it is something I must read; the book is the enormous
> I also happened to read an essay by Morna D. Hooker the other
> day that I also liked quite a lot. The essay is titled "The Son of Man
> and the Synoptic problem" and was published in "The four gospels"
> (Leuven 1992). Hooker's aim has been to see if there is any sign
> of directionality in the way the "title" Son of Man is used in the synoptic
Neirynck Festschrift if I remember correctly. Also relevant here is Peter
Head's recent _Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument For Markan
Priority_ (SNTS Monograph Series; Cambridge: C.U.P., 1997).
Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
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
- Leonard Maluf wrote- ... Leonard, It is true that many make the assumption that the synoptists copied from older materials (including one synoptist copyingMessage 37 of 37 , Nov 9, 1998View SourceLeonard Maluf wrote-
>I guess what I really want to know is why the assumption is made (inLeonard,
>your, and in many other Synoptic theories) that the Evangelists are
>essentially copiers of older materials.
It is true that many make the assumption that the synoptists
copied from older materials (including one synoptist copying from an
earlier synoptist, of course).
Why such an assumption is made is, I would suggest, irrelevant. Why a
scientist puts forward a hypothesis is unimportant. What matters is
whether his hypothesis is compatible with the observed phenomena. The
reason why the scientist formulated his idea, is neither here nor there.
In the particular question of the Synoptic Problem, why an assumption is
made concerning any synoptic gospel is of no consequence. What really
matters is whether the synoptic theory being put forward fits the
patterns observed in a synopsis.
The Proto-Mark Hypothesis is an example of a synoptic theory which makes
the assumption that all three synoptists depended on older common
documentary source material. This hypothesis is described by F. Neirynck
in his article 'Synoptic Problem' in the "New Jerome Biblical
Commentary" (London, 1989) - see page 593. It holds that all three
synoptists copied independently from a Proto-Mark, and that Matthew and
Luke independently copied from "Q". The hypothesis is compatible with
the Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the triple
tradition, and also with all indications that material in Matthew is
secondary to material in Mark, and all indications that material in Mark
is secondary to material in Matthew. This last property - compatibility
with material in Mark appearing to be secondary to material in Matthew -
is frequently overlooked by advocates of this hypothesis.
HOMEPAGE -- http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk