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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.