"Christology and the synoptic problem"
- 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....
- On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Thomas R.W. Longstaff wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Antonio Jerez wrote:Dear Thomas,
> > The Griesbach ship is sinking, sinking....
> As we march along in lockstep never thinking,
> never thinking.
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.
Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
- On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> Dear Thomas,I am surprised that you understood this to be a "conclusive rebuttal"
> 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.
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
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.
- On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Thomas R.W. Longstaff wrote:
> I am surprised that you understood this to be a "conclusive rebuttal"Your surmise is warranted, Thomas. I suppose I was somewhat troubled by
> to the points made by the previous poster. Pehaps you intended this
> as sarcasm.
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".
Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto