Re: "Christology and the syno ptic problem"
- On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Antonio Jerez wrote:
>The Griesbach ship is sinking, sinking....Thomas R.W. Longstaff replied:
>>As we march along in lockstep never thinking,never thinking.
Later prof. Longstaff replied to Yuri Kushinsky:
>>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?waters quite successfully.
>>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
>>The Wright brothers first plane crashed after a very shortflight at Kitty Hawk and yet today areo-space
flights are commonplace.
>>Perhaps those views that are ever so strong today (andwhich lead folk to poke fun at the horseless
carriages) are not, after all, the future of all
It is quite true that I ended my letter on Heads book a little jokingly. And in the same vein I took prof. Longstaffs short reply.
But I would certainly not agree that people like Head are never thinking,
never thinking just as I wouldnt agree that people like W. Farmer and
D. Dungan are never thinking, never thinking. Quite to the contrary.
As is obvious Dr. Head has put a lot of thinking into his wellresearched book. You may of course not agree with the way he thinks and his logic, but that is another matter. In the same way people like McNichols et. al have put a lot of thinking into a book like Beyond the Q impasse. Also in this case you may disagree with the way of their thinking and their logic. And the WAY of thinking and the WAY of putting data together is precisely the point were I and a great majority of scholars think that the Griesbachians have got it totally wrong. Though the Griesbachians will of course not agree (yet) there is a growing amount of studies that taken together show that something is seriously wrong with this hypothesis. Heads study shows it, Mark Goodacres
fatigue factor shows it, Morna Hookers study of the development of the Son of Man concept in the synoptics show it, litterary critical studies of the structures of the gospels shows it (for example the much more consistent use of the Messianic secret in Gmark)
So in the end I think most scholars will increasingly agree with me (which of course doesnt prove that they are right) that the Griesbach Juggernaut is sinking deeper and deeper for each new day.
But to be fair the Griesbachians should also be applauded for having given a lot of counterarguments that show that we shouldnt take a lot of the standard arguments for Markan priority for granted. A good example is the Christological argument Head mentions in his book. With this is mind the ones who argue for Markan priority have been forced to look at things from new angles and come up with ever stronger arguments an enterprise where I think they are increasingly successful.
Skaffa gratis e-post på http://www.kurir.net/
Byt till gratis Internet på http://www.spray.se/