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

Re: [Synoptic-L] D. L. Dungan

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... This is quite odd but it may be more a sign of carelessness than ignorance -- Dungan does know what the Farrer Theory is. Nevertheless, I was somewhat
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      On 30 Jun 99, at 23:05, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

      > I've just received Dungan's new book, too.

      This is quite odd but it may be more a sign of carelessness than ignorance --
      Dungan does know what the Farrer Theory is. Nevertheless, I was somewhat
      surprised that similarly in _Beyond the Q Impasse_ (p. 9) there was a jump
      straight from Butler to Farmer.

      > For example, on page 378, Dungan writes, with respect to the 1991
      > Goettingen Conference:
      > "Organized by Strecker and Farmer, this conference was
      > attended by about forty scholars from Europe, England,
      > and the United States to reports on ways of interpreting
      > the 'minor agreements' using different theoretical approaches:
      > Ur-Markus (Strecker), Augustinian (Goulder), [<-- NOT!]
      > Two Source (Neirynck), Griesbach (Farmer/Peabody)."

      I am afraid that if this transcription is accurate, there is another major error here.
      Georg Strecker (who edited the resulting volume) is a proponent of Deutero-
      markus and not Ur-markus. Further, it was Albert Fuchs who was the main
      proponent of that position at the conference and in the resulting volume and he has
      written on the theory at much greater length than Strecker. It should perhaps be
      clarified also that Strecker, Luz, Fuchs et al would regard themselves as
      proponents of the "Two Source" theory. Neirynck's position at the conference &
      volume was shared with Tuckett: Two Source Theory with independent redaction
      by Matthew and Luke of (our) Mark.

      > As another example, on pages 384-5, Dungan has a short section called,
      > "The Continuation of B. C. Butler's Proposed Solution." In this section
      > (after correctly explaining on p. 371 that Butler was an Augustinian),
      > Dungan writes:
      > "After B. C. Butler attacked Streeter's defense of the Two
      > Source Hypothesis, a small number of English scholars sought
      > to develop his arguments further. Foremost among them has
      > been Austin Farrer and his student Michael Goulder, whose
      > LUKE: A New Paradigm, 2 vols. (1989) is the most extensive
      > redactional analysis of the Gospel of Luke from this
      > perspective in the literature."
      >
      > Although there are some similarities between the FH and AH on the
      > question of Luke, their approaches to the Mark-Matthew relationship
      > are diametrically opposed. The Farrer Hypothesis supports Markan
      > priority, and the Augustinian Hypothesis supports Matthean priority.

      Indeed. And in Goulder's case, all his earlier work was devoted to explaining the
      Matthew-Mark relationship on the Mark-Without-Q theory, especially _Midrash
      and Lection in Matthew_ (London: SPCK, 1974), the worked that earned him
      his D.D. It is only later in his career that he turned his attention to Luke.

      It is also worth noting that Farrer never produced major work on Luke. The
      closest he got was in "On Dispensing with Q" itself. For him, dispensing with Q
      was very much a matter of helping us to interpret Matthew. Take for example the
      last line of "Dispensing":

      "Once rid of Q, we are rid of a progeny of nameless chimaeras, and free to let St.
      Matthew write as he is moved." (p. 86).

      > I know it seems customary in American to give this important alternative
      > to the 2SH a very short shrift, but it would be nice if folks would
      > actually be able to correctly explain what the Farrer Hypothesis stands
      > for (Mark without Q). Thus, this failure is a blemish on an otherwise
      > instructive book.

      As I have said before, one of the difficulties with this is that it means that many
      who accept the 2ST as "consensus" or Griesbach as the "only viable alternative"
      are doing so in ignorance of a the major alternative to both.

      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
      New Testament Web Resources
      Mark Without Q
      Aseneth Home Page
    • Mark Goodacre
      Apologies -- a bit got missed off my previous message. I am struggling with a new mailer (Pegasus 3). It wasn t of much consequence but just to the effect of
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Apologies -- a bit got missed off my previous message. I am
        struggling with a new mailer (Pegasus 3). It wasn't of much
        consequence but just to the effect of noting that I have not yet
        received Dungan's book and that I am therefore only commenting on
        Stephen's transcription and not on the book itself.

        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
        New Testament Web Resources
        Mark Without Q
        Aseneth Home Page
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... It appears that my note may have come accross too disparaging of an otherwise fine and thought-provoking book, especially about the philosophical basis
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 1, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          At 12:33 PM 7/1/99 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
          >On 30 Jun 99, at 23:05, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
          >> I know it seems customary in American to give this important alternative
          >> to the 2SH a very short shrift, but it would be nice if folks would
          >> actually be able to correctly explain what the Farrer Hypothesis stands
          >> for (Mark without Q). Thus, this failure is a blemish on an otherwise
          >> instructive book.
          >
          >As I have said before, one of the difficulties with this is that it means that many
          >who accept the 2ST as "consensus" or Griesbach as the "only viable alternative"
          >are doing so in ignorance of a the major alternative to both.


          It appears that my note may have come accross too disparaging of an otherwise
          fine and thought-provoking book, especially about the philosophical basis
          undergirding both modern historico-criticism and fundamentalism, but this
          one issue (being able to accurate represent the scholarship of the FH) is a
          pet peeve of mine.

          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
        • Jeff Peterson
          ... Just to chime in on this point, I was very disappointed to see Dungan s new history lumping Farrer-Goulder in with Augustine and Butler; the operative
          Message 4 of 7 , Jul 1, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            At 11:05 PM -0400 6/30/99, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
            >I know it seems customary in American to give this important alternative
            >to the 2SH a very short shrift, but it would be nice if folks would
            >actually be able to correctly explain what the Farrer Hypothesis stands
            >for (Mark without Q). Thus, this failure is a blemish on an otherwise
            >instructive book.

            Just to chime in on this point, I was very disappointed to see Dungan's new
            history lumping Farrer-Goulder in with Augustine and Butler; the operative
            criterion for Dungan seems to be "To Q or not to Q?", and if one declines
            then one is included under the Matthaean priority umbrella. This is really
            to miss the significance of Farrer's hypothesis, which E. P. Sanders has
            aptly termed "Mark Without Q," which might be refined into "Marcan priority
            without Q." (It is further disappointing that from reading Dungan one would
            know only of Sanders's willingness to entertain Boismard's complex
            hypothesis of Synoptic relationships, and not of Sanders's explicit
            endorsement of the Farrerian form of Farrer-Goulder -- i.e., Marcan
            priority, Luke's use of Matthew in addition to Mark, and possible sources
            for the matter conventionally designated Q, M, and L; this last in dissent
            from Goulder's development of Farrer). Per Stephen Carlson's observation
            that the book is really a pre-history of the Synoptic problem, it is also
            disappointing to find no mention of Mark Goodacre's _Goulder and the
            Gospels_, which on my reading tends to commend the Farrerian form of the
            theory endorsed by Sanders.

            ------------------------------------
            Jeffrey Peterson
            Institute for Christian Studies
            Austin, Texas, USA
            ------------------------------------
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 6/30/1999 11:07:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes:
            Message 5 of 7 , Jul 1, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 6/30/1999 11:07:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
              scarlson@... writes:

              << Although there are some similarities between the FH and AH on the
              question of Luke, their approaches to the Mark-Matthew relationship
              are diametrically opposed. The Farrer Hypothesis supports Markan
              priority, and the Augustinian Hypothesis supports Matthean priority.
              Furthermore, the Farrer Hypothesis, because of its commitment to
              Mark's priority, is proving to be an abler opponent today to the 2SH
              than Matthean priority theories like Butler's Augustinian Hypothesis
              and Dungan's own Griesbach hypothesis. >>

              I think there is a touch of subjectivity in this last remark. Whether the
              Farrer Hypothesis or the Griesbach hypothesis will ultimately prove the
              "abler opponent" to the 2 SH remains to be seen. Stephen rightly refers above
              to the "committment to Mark's priority" or again, to "support" of Markan
              priority by adherents of Farrer's position. What Markan priority really
              needs, however, is demonstration, not committment, and for the most part
              Farrer supporters have simply continued to assume (rather than to
              demonstrate) Markan priority. Two Gospel Hypothesis advocates have seen not
              just one of the weaknesses of the 2 SH, but both of them, Markan priority
              being itself one of the real liabilities of that theory because of the
              weakness of the classical arguments in its support, the lack of an ability on
              the part of its supporters to come up with new valid arguments (though Mark
              Goodacre's recent attempts in this direction are certainly to be commended),
              and its intrinsic lack of ability to account for innumerable data of the
              Synoptic phenomena. Having said this, Stephen is certainly right in bewailing
              the fact that supporters of other views are still unable to "get it right"
              when it comes to making important distinctions, such as that between Farrer's
              and the Augustinian Hypothesis. My sincere condolences!

              Leonard Maluf
            • Jeff Peterson
              ... Thanks to Stephen Carlson for pointing out privately that Dungan does in fact cite _Goulder and the Gospels_ (p. 507, n. 65, although it s at best
              Message 6 of 7 , Jul 6, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                At 1:06 PM -0500 7/1/99, Jeff Peterson wrote:
                >it is also
                >disappointing to find no mention of Mark Goodacre's _Goulder and the
                >Gospels_ [in Dungan's _History_] . . . .

                Thanks to Stephen Carlson for pointing out privately that Dungan does in
                fact cite _Goulder and the Gospels_ (p. 507, n. 65, although it's at best
                imprecise to characterize Mark as "one of [Goulder's] leading students").
                My statement should be revised to read that it's disappointing to find no
                discussion of the book, or for that matter a presentation of the Farrer
                hypothesis of Marcan Priority Without Q that clearly distinguishes it from
                the Griesbach and Augustinian hypotheses of Matthaean Priority Without Q.
                This still seems to me a major limitation on the value of the book for
                advancing the discussion; where else than in a history of the Synoptic
                problem would one expect to see the options clearly laid out?

                Jeff

                ------------------------------------
                Jeffrey Peterson
                Institute for Christian Studies
                Austin, Texas, USA
                ------------------------------------
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.