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

"Christology and the synoptic problem"

Expand Messages
  • Antonio Jerez
    I would like to call attention to a new book by Peter M. Head, Christology and the synoptic problem - an argument for Markan priority (Cambridge university
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 30, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      I would like to call attention to a new book by Peter M. Head,
      "Christology and the synoptic problem - an argument for Markan
      priority" (Cambridge university press 1997). The book is really,
      really good and in my opinion puts another nail in the coffin of the
      neo-Griesbach hypothesis. In contrast to earlier studies Head does
      not ground his argumentation on supposed developments in Christology, i.e.
      from a lower christology in an early GMark to a higher christology in GMatthew
      and GLuke. Instead he takes a close look at the relevant pericopes and uses
      the 'criterion of coherence' to test the Griesbach theory and the 2SH. The great
      thing is that he tries to make sense of the redactional activities of the gospel
      writers first from the viewpoint of the Griesbachians and then from the viewpoint
      of the 2SH. At the end of it all Head concludes that Griesbach has little to offer:
      "...the data we have surveyed provide little encouragement for modern
      defenders of the Griesbach hypothesis. To be sure we have had occasion
      to point to aspects of the Griesbach_markan redaction which were of
      interest or which offered an explanation for some of his projected behaviour.
      Such examples, combined with a generally negative verdict on the chrsitological
      argument for Markan priority as customarily framed, should not, however, be
      taken as indications of support for the Griesbach hypothesis. In no single
      passage or aspect of our investigation did the Griesbach hypothesis emerge
      as preferable to the 2SH in terms of the coherence or plausability of the
      redactional activity which the hypothesis requires. Such a negative judgement
      does not rest upon the christological argument in the first instance but on
      the method agreed by recent defenders of the Griesbach hypothesis."

      The Griesbach ship is sinking, sinking....


      Best wishes

      Antonio Jerez
    • Thomas R.W. Longstaff
      ... As we march along in lockstep never thinking, never thinking.
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 30, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Antonio Jerez wrote:

        > The Griesbach ship is sinking, sinking....

        As we march along in lockstep never thinking,
        never thinking.
      • Yuri Kuchinsky
        ... Dear Thomas, This sort of a conclusive rebuttal from you to all the points Antonio outlined in his post will definitely increase my confidence that the
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 31, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Thomas R.W. Longstaff wrote:

          > On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Antonio Jerez wrote:
          >
          > > The Griesbach ship is sinking, sinking....
          >
          > As we march along in lockstep never thinking,
          > never thinking.

          Dear Thomas,

          This sort of a conclusive rebuttal from you to all the points Antonio
          outlined in his post will definitely increase my confidence that the
          Griesbach hypothesis is still alive and well.

          Best regards,

          Yuri.

          Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

          http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

          If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
        • Thomas R.W. Longstaff
          ... I am surprised that you understood this to be a conclusive rebuttal to the points made by the previous poster. Pehaps you intended this as sarcasm. It
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 31, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

            > Dear Thomas,
            >
            > This sort of a conclusive rebuttal from you to all the points Antonio
            > outlined in his post will definitely increase my confidence that the
            > Griesbach hypothesis is still alive and well.

            I am surprised that you understood this to be a "conclusive rebuttal"
            to the points made by the previous poster. Pehaps you intended this
            as sarcasm. It should have been clear that my response was to his
            closing refrain. One frequently seen dynamic is to poke fun at or
            otherwise ridicule a view that you do not accept. Especially when
            the view that is so treated is a minority view in the discussion
            others who reject the view are wont to smile. Indeed, although not
            in this case, such ridicule often serves to bolster an arugment that
            sorely needs it. It is interesting that his poking fun at the
            Griesbach hypothesis generated no comment; my rejoinder did - which
            tells us something, n'est ce pas?

            Perhaps it is true that the Griesbach hypothesis is sinking. I can
            accept that view. After all:

            The Titanic sunk and today large ocean vessels ply the
            waters quite successfully.
            The Wright brothers first plane crashed after a very short
            flight at Kitty Hawk and yet today areo-space
            flights are commonplace.
            Perhaps those views that are ever so strong today (and
            which lead folk to poke fun at the horseless
            carriages) are not, after all, the future of all
            wisdom.

            But I will give you the last word on this. Perhaps you'd like to
            tell us why you were silent at the first barb but vocal about
            my rejoinder to it.

            T. Longstaff
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            ... Your surmise is warranted, Thomas. I suppose I was somewhat troubled by the implication that Peter M. Head, the author of Christology and the synoptic
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 1, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Thomas R.W. Longstaff wrote:

              > I am surprised that you understood this to be a "conclusive rebuttal"
              > to the points made by the previous poster. Pehaps you intended this
              > as sarcasm.

              Your surmise is warranted, Thomas. I suppose I was somewhat troubled by
              the implication that Peter M. Head, the author of "Christology and the
              synoptic problem - an argument for Markan priority" (Cambridge university
              press 1997) was "never thinking".

              Best,

              Yuri.

              Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

              http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.