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

Re: [Synoptic-L] D. L. Dungan (2)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.