Re: [Synoptic-L] D. L. Dungan
- At 12:33 PM 7/1/99 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
>On 30 Jun 99, at 23:05, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:It appears that my note may have come accross too disparaging of an otherwise
>> 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.
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 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
- At 11:05 PM -0400 6/30/99, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>I know it seems customary in American to give this important alternativeJust to chime in on this point, I was very disappointed to see Dungan's new
>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
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.
Institute for Christian Studies
Austin, Texas, USA
- In a message dated 6/30/1999 11:07:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<< 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!
- At 1:06 PM -0500 7/1/99, Jeff Peterson wrote:
>it is alsoThanks to Stephen Carlson for pointing out privately that Dungan does in
>disappointing to find no mention of Mark Goodacre's _Goulder and the
>Gospels_ [in Dungan's _History_] . . . .
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?
Institute for Christian Studies
Austin, Texas, USA