Re: focussing on one synoptic hypothesis at a time
- 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.
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
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.
E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
- 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.
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
Aseneth Home Page
Recommended New Testament Web Resources
World Without Q