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

Re: SECSOR and the Synoptic Problem

Expand Messages
  • Peter Head
    D. Burkett wrote a book on the Son of Man in John (I m not sure of the exact title or publisher, possibly JSNT or SBL monographs) and an article on The
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 18, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      D. Burkett wrote a book on the Son of Man in John (I'm not sure of the
      exact title or publisher, possibly JSNT or SBL monographs) and an
      article on "The Nontitular Son of Man" in New Testament Studies
      40(1994), pp. 504-521.



      ............................................
      Peter M. Head
      Oak Hill College
      LONDON N14 4PS
      peterh@...
      ............................................
    • Wieland Willker
      Articles: ====== Titel: The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John Verfasser: D. Burkett ; U. Schnelle Erschienen in: Theologische Literaturzeitung. - ISSN
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 18, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Articles:
        ======
        Titel: The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John
        Verfasser: D. Burkett ; U. Schnelle
        Erschienen in: Theologische Literaturzeitung. - ISSN 00405671, Bd. 121
        (1996), H. 5, S. 453

        Titel: The Son of Man in the Gospel of John
        Verfasser: D. Burkett ; L. Miller
        Erschienen in: Theologische Zeitschrift <Basel>. - ISSN 00405701, Bd. 50
        (1994), H. 3, S. 268

        Titel: The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John
        Verfasser: D. Burkett ; Francis Moloney
        Erschienen in: The Journal of theological studies. - ISSN 00225185, Bd. 44
        (1993), H. 1

        Titel: two accounts of lazarus' resurrection in john 11
        Verfasser: delbert burkett
        Erschienen in: Novum Testamentum. - ISSN 00481009, Bd. 36 (1994), H. 3, S.
        209-232

        Titel: the nontitular son of man: a history and critique
        Verfasser: delbert burkett
        Erschienen in: New Testament studies. - ISSN 00286885, Bd. 40 (1994), H. 4,
        S. 504-521

        Books:
        =====
        Autor/Herausgeber: Burkett, Delbert
        Vervffentlicht: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991
        Seiten: 199 S.
        Serien: Journal for the study of the New Testament : Supplement series ; 56
        ISBN: 1-85075-292-3


        Best wishes
        Wieland
      • Jonathan Ryder
        ... Title: The Son of Man in the Gospel of John ... Hope you don t mind me repairing your omission. Jonathan Ryder
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 18, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Wieland Willker wrote:

          > Books:
          > =====

          Title: The Son of Man in the Gospel of John

          >
          > Autor/Herausgeber: Burkett, Delbert
          > Vervffentlicht: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991
          > Seiten: 199 S.
          > Serien: Journal for the study of the New Testament : Supplement series ; 56
          > ISBN: 1-85075-292-3
          >
          > Best wishes
          > Wieland

          Hope you don't mind me repairing your omission.

          Jonathan Ryder
        • Dr. and Mrs. David B. Peabody
          Colleagues: For those of you who have expressed an interest, Delbert Burkett s Home Page at Louisiana State University is located at the following URL:
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 18, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Colleagues:

            For those of you who have expressed an interest, Delbert Burkett's Home
            Page at Louisiana State University is located at the following URL:

            http://www2.artsci.lsu.edu/phil/faculty/burkett/index.html

            Unfortunately, the information found there provides no clue to the answer
            to Stephen's question. I have e-mailed Delbert directly encouraging him
            to consider posting his SECSOR paper to the WEB, but have not yet received
            a response.

            David B. Peabody Professor and Chair
            Department of Religion and Philosophy
            Lincoln, NE
            peabody@...
            or
            dbp@...
          • Phill Gross
            ... 56 ... This book is referenced briefly in A Survey of Recent Literature of the Fourth Gospel by James F. McGrath (reachable from the Theological
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 18, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              >Title: The Son of Man in the Gospel of John
              >> Autor/Herausgeber: Burkett, Delbert
              >> Vervffentlicht: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991
              >> Seiten: 199 S.
              >> Serien: Journal for the study of the New Testament : Supplement series ;
              56
              >> ISBN: 1-85075-292-3

              This book is referenced briefly in "A Survey of Recent Literature of the
              Fourth Gospel" by James F. McGrath (reachable from the Theological Gathering
              web site, http://private.fuller.edu/~talarm/ ).
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Mark Goodacre wrote - ... Mark, Yes. Sorry! I was indeed wrongly assuming that Markan Priority referred to the Two Document Hypothesis only. (My method is to
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 18, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark Goodacre wrote -
                >
                >I am afraid that I have never heard of Burkett either. A small clarification
                >is, however, in order here. In this paragraph, Brian apparently equates
                >"Markan Priority" with "the idea that Matthew and Luke copied independently
                >from Mark". Of course one can believe in Markan Priority without holding also
                >to Matthew's and Luke's independence of one another -- the Farrer theory.
                >
                Mark,
                Yes. Sorry! I was indeed wrongly assuming that "Markan Priority"
                referred to the Two Document Hypothesis only. (My method is to consider
                one synoptic hypothesis at a time.) I suppose Markan Priority is that
                both Matthew and Luke are documentary descendants of Mark. You are right
                that this goes beyond just the Two Document Hypothesis. Markan Priority
                includes hypotheses in which Matthew and Luke are not independent
                because Luke used Matthew, or because Matthew used Luke. Markan
                Priority would also take in R. T. Fleddermann's Hypothesis that all
                three synoptist used "Q" and Matthew and Luke independently used Mark.
                Likewise the Deutero-Mark Hypothesis in which Matthew and Luke
                independently used Mark. And so on. There is an indefinite number of
                synoptic hypotheses in which both Matthew and Luke are documentary
                descendants of Mark, whether or not independently so. Markan Priority
                covers a multitude of synoptic hypotheses on this understanding.

                If we had been asked to consider one synoptic hypothesis, then it might
                have been possible to point to patterns of similarities and differences
                in the synoptic gospels which the synoptic hypothesis can fit only with
                the greatest difficulty. In this sense, it might have been possible to
                find "conclusive evidence against" (or as near conclusive as we can get)
                the one synoptic hypothesis being considered.

                But if we are considering an indefinite number of synoptic hypotheses
                under the umbrella of "Markan Priority", then I do not see that such
                conclusive evidence is possible from the data supplied by the synoptic
                gospels themselves.

                Could it be, therefore, that Burkett considers that he has evidence from
                **outside** the synoptic gospels which is conclusively against Markan
                Priority? From the Gospel of John, for instance?

                Best wishes,
                BRIAN WILSON

                E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
                SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... Thanks to Peter and the others who have responded. I may be going out on a limb here, but I m wondering if Burkett has developed an argument against
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 18, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 10:51 AM 2/18/99 -0000, Peter Head wrote:
                  >D. Burkett wrote a book on the Son of Man in John (I'm not sure of the
                  >exact title or publisher, possibly JSNT or SBL monographs) and an
                  >article on "The Nontitular Son of Man" in New Testament Studies
                  >40(1994), pp. 504-521.

                  Thanks to Peter and the others who have responded. I may be going out
                  on a limb here, but I'm wondering if Burkett has developed an argument
                  against Markan priority based on the use of the Son of Man.

                  If so, I'm sure he and others would be interested in a recent book from
                  SNTS Monograph Series 102: Maurice Casey, ARAMAIC SOURCES OF MARK'S GOSPEL
                  (Cambridge: University Press, 1998). Casey proposes a rigorous methodology
                  to reconstruct the putative Aramaic original to Jesus' sayings. Casey
                  devotes a chapter to Mk 9:11-13 and eventually points out that, based
                  on his analysis, it provides "an additional argument for the priority of
                  Mark" (p.136). If people are interested, I can summarize the argument.

                  Interestingly, Casey interacts with this article of Burkett's cited
                  by Peter over the span of four pages (pp.118-121).

                  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
                • Mark Goodacre
                  ... Of course one of the difficulties is that in the literature Markan Priority has largely come to mean the indepedent use of Mark by Matthew and Luke .
                  Message 8 of 15 , Feb 19, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 18 Feb 99 at 21:42, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                    > Yes. Sorry! I was indeed wrongly assuming that "Markan Priority"
                    > referred to the Two Document Hypothesis only. (My method is to consider
                    > one synoptic hypothesis at a time.) I suppose Markan Priority is that
                    > both Matthew and Luke are documentary descendants of Mark. You are right
                    > that this goes beyond just the Two Document Hypothesis.

                    Of course one of the difficulties is that in the literature "Markan Priority"
                    has largely come to mean "the indepedent use of Mark by Matthew and Luke". It
                    does cause a problem for advocates of the Farrer theory because they can be
                    talked out of the equation before any analysis of the texts is under way. I do
                    not have it in front of me but I seem to remember that in his recent book (_The
                    God of Jesus: The Historical Jesus and the Search for Meaning_, Morehouse,
                    1998) Stephen Patterson practically defines Markan Priority as independent use
                    of Mark by Matthew and Luke, then proceeding to ask the question, "Then how do
                    we account for this double tradition material". Under such circumstances, the
                    postulation of Q becomes inevitable.

                    Mark
                    --------------------------------------
                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                    Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                    University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                    Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                    http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                    Aseneth Home Page
                    Recommended New Testament Web Resources
                    World Without Q
                  • Brian E. Wilson
                    Mark Goodacre wrote - ... Mark, Not really. The Boismard Hypothesis and the Proto-Mark Hypothesis are just two examples of the thesis of Luke s independence
                    Message 9 of 15 , Mar 3, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mark Goodacre wrote -
                      >
                      >it is clear that the move (conjectural emendation of the text) is
                      >simply prompted by the need to remove the MA - (TIS ESTIN hO PAISAJ SE)
                      >that is so difficult for the thesis of Luke's independence from
                      >Matthew.
                      >
                      Mark,
                      Not really. The Boismard Hypothesis and the Proto-Mark
                      Hypothesis are just two examples of the thesis of Luke's independence
                      from Matthew, and yet the MA is no difficulty at all for these
                      hypotheses. The MA is therefore no difficulty for the thesis of Luke's
                      independence from Matthew, but is perfectly consistent with it.

                      Of course, neither is the MA a difficulty for the Farrer Hypothesis
                      which holds that Luke was not independent from Matthew. But we are no
                      more justified in equating the Farrer Hypothesis with the thesis that
                      Luke is not independent from Matthew, than in equating the Two Document
                      Hypothesis with the thesis of Markan Priority, are we? The Two Document
                      Hypothesis is not the sum-total of Markan Priority (as pointed out by
                      yourself in a recent message), but neither is the Farrer Hypothesis the
                      sum-total of Luke's non-independence from Matthew.

                      Dozens of synoptic hypotheses assume the thesis of Luke's non-
                      independence from Matthew, just as dozens assume the thesis of Markan
                      Priority. Utter confusion reigns, however, if we try arguing that the MA
                      is a difficulty for either type of hypothesis, instead of focussing our
                      attention on one specified hypothesis whatever the general type(s) to
                      which it may happen to belong.

                      We should therefore resist the temptation to use data to try and test
                      any class of synoptic hypotheses as a whole. We should take one synoptic
                      hypothesis at a time, and test just that one against the data.

                      Using this method, it is clear that the MA is a difficulty for the Two
                      Document Hypothesis (which is one synoptic hypothesis), not for the
                      thesis of Luke's independence from Matthew (which is a class of synoptic
                      hypotheses).

                      Best wishes,
                      BRIAN WILSON

                      E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
                      SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                      10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                    • Mark Goodacre
                      ... Agreed, though of course the context within which Neirynck, Tuckett and Goulder are working in the discussion of this MA is one that accepts Markan
                      Message 10 of 15 , Mar 4, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I had written:

                        > >it is clear that the move (conjectural emendation of the text) is
                        > >simply prompted by the need to remove the MA - (TIS ESTIN hO PAISAJ SE)
                        > >that is so difficult for the thesis of Luke's independence from
                        > >Matthew.

                        On 3 Mar 99 at 16:26, Brian E. Wilson wrote (some omitted):

                        > Not really. The Boismard Hypothesis and the Proto-Mark
                        > Hypothesis are just two examples of the thesis of Luke's independence
                        > from Matthew, and yet the MA is no difficulty at all for these
                        > hypotheses. The MA is therefore no difficulty for the thesis of Luke's
                        > independence from Matthew, but is perfectly consistent with it.

                        Agreed, though of course the context within which Neirynck, Tuckett and Goulder
                        are working in the discussion of this MA is one that accepts Markan Priority
                        but disagrees over whether or not Matthew and Luke are independent, hence my
                        framing it in these terms. If one wants a clearer expression of the point,
                        the MA at Mark 14.65 is problematic for the Two-Source Theory as classically
                        defined, viz. Markan Priority + the independence of Matthew and Luke.

                        Mark
                        --------------------------------------
                        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                        Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                        Aseneth Home Page
                        Recommended New Testament Web Resources
                        World Without Q
                      • Brian E. Wilson
                        Mark Goodacre wrote - ... Mark, Unfortunately your formula does not define the Two Document Hypothesis, does it? Nor do I find that this is how Streeter and
                        Message 11 of 15 , Mar 5, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mark Goodacre wrote -
                          >
                          >the context within which Neirynck, Tuckett and Goulder are working in
                          >the discussion of this MA is one that accepts Markan Priority but
                          >disagrees over whether or not Matthew and Luke are independent, hence
                          >my framing it in these terms. If one wants a clearer expression of
                          >the point, the MA at Mark 14.65 is problematic for the Two-Source
                          >Theory as classically defined, viz. Markan Priority + the independence
                          >of Matthew and Luke.
                          >
                          Mark,
                          Unfortunately your formula does not define the Two Document
                          Hypothesis, does it? Nor do I find that this is how Streeter and others
                          "classically" attempted to define the 2DH.

                          There are plenty of other synoptic hypotheses which affirm both Markan
                          Priority and the independence of Matthew and Luke. For instance Zeller's
                          Hypothesis (see diagram on page xxxv of J. S. Kloppenborg, "Q
                          Parallels", Sonoma, 1951), and Fleddermann's Hypothesis (see diagram on
                          page 300 of H. T. Fleddermann, "Mark and Q", Leuven, 1995). And so on.

                          The formula "Markan Priority + the independence of Matthew and Luke"
                          represents a whole class of synoptic hypotheses. We cannot define a
                          particular hypothesis merely by assigning it to this class. The same
                          would apply to the formula - "Markan Priority + the non-independence of
                          Matthew and Luke". This does not define the Farrer Hypothesis, or any
                          other synoptic hypothesis.

                          More generally, it is mis-leading to suggest that any synoptic
                          hypothesis is defined by assigning it to any class of synoptic
                          hypotheses.

                          Defining a synoptic hypothesis requires that the hypothesis itself is
                          uniquely identified by explicitly stating every documentary source, and
                          every documentary linkage, it contains. Otherwise confusion reigns.

                          It seems to me that the ideas of "Markan Priority" and "the independence
                          of Matthew and Luke" have nothing to do with the point you are making
                          above. The argument can simply be put as follows - The MA at Mk 14.65
                          is a difficulty for the Two Document Hypothesis in the sense that the
                          2DH cannot easily account for the occurrence of this agreement of
                          Matthew and Luke against Mark within a passage in which there are many
                          agreements of Matthew and/or Luke with Mark. It is not a difficulty for
                          the Farrer Hypothesis, however, since the MA is easily accounted for by
                          the FH as the result of Matthew choosing to make an addition to the
                          wording of Mark as he used Mark, and Luke choosing to copy this
                          additional wording from Matthew as he used both Matthew and Mark.

                          Best wishes,
                          BRIAN WILSON

                          E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
                          SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                          10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                        • Mark Goodacre
                          Thankyou, Brian, for holding me to account and encouraging me to express myself more clearly. Of course you are right that there is a class of (related)
                          Message 12 of 15 , Mar 5, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thankyou, Brian, for holding me to account and encouraging me to express myself
                            more clearly. Of course you are right that there is a class of (related)
                            hypotheses that believe in Markan Priority + the independence of Matthew and
                            Luke. However, I would reiterate that the context within which I was
                            discussing the point was that defined by the views of Tuckett, Neirynck and
                            Goulder, those who accept Markan Priority (in the sense of Matthean and Lukan
                            dependence on something closely akin to our canonical Mark) but disagree over
                            whether Luke knew Matthew.

                            Mark
                            --------------------------------------
                            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                            Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                            University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                            Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                            http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                            Aseneth Home Page
                            Recommended New Testament Web Resources
                            World Without Q
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.