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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Who is the father of the 2SH?

Expand Messages
  • Steven Craig Miller
    To: Stephen C. Carlson,
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 15, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Stephen C. Carlson,

      << Who is the father of the Two-Source Hypothesis: Credner or Weisse? Most
      of my sources (Farmer, Stoldt, Boismard) claim that Weisse (1838) is the
      first to conceive of the 2SH, but Bo Reicke claims that Credner (1836)
      was. Who's right? >>

      I have been wanting to address this very issue to the list for some time,
      so I'm glad that you have gotten around to asking this question.

      William R. Farmer [1994] writes:

      << This hypothesis [the Two-Source Hypothesis] was first formulated by
      Christian Hermann Weisse in 1838, then popularized through the epoch-making
      work of Holtzmann published in 1863 and thereafter adopted by an
      ever-increasing number of critics until by Bultmann's student days before
      World War I, it was regarded in many universities as an assured result of
      nineteenth-century New Testament criticism >> (203).

      The problem I have is this, Holtzmann in 1863 did not hold the same 2SH
      which I was taught! Holtzmann believed in a ur-Marcus as a source, not that
      our gospel of Mark was a source. IMO these are two distinct hypotheses.
      After 1880 (according to Farmer) Holtzmann changed his mind and held that
      Mark was used by Matthew and Luke, but by then he held that Luke had used
      Matthew (see Farmer 1964,1976:86n62). Thus Holtzmann is NOT the (or even
      "a") father of the 2SH, but rather he now appears to have been the father
      of the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis! Or, I guess that should be the
      Holtzmann-Farrer-Goulder hypothesis! But the 2SH, as I was taught it, that
      is, as Mark as a source, doesn't seem to have been seriously advocated
      until the 20th century in England!

      So, if the choice is between Weisse (1838) or Credner (1836), IMO the
      answer is neither! For neither of them held that Mark was the source for
      Matthew and Luke.

      -Steven Craig Miller
      Alton, Illinois (USA)
      scmiller@...
      Disclaimer: "I'm just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree),
      what do I know?"
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... Cf. Goulder, _Luke_, p. 30: Credner is the inventor of Q. He accepted Schleiermacher s picture without demur: Matthew the apostle wrote the LOGIA, and a
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 15, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        On 15 Dec 99, at 1:28, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

        >
        > Who is the father of the Two-Source Hypothesis: Credner or Weisse?
        >
        > Most of my sources (Farmer, Stoldt, Boismard) claim that Weisse (1838) is
        > the first to conceive of the 2SH, but Bo Reicke claims that Credner (1836)
        > was. Who's right?

        Cf. Goulder, _Luke_, p. 30: "Credner is the inventor of Q. He
        accepted Schleiermacher's picture without demur: Matthew the
        apostle wrote the LOGIA, and a Palestinian (the evangelist) combined
        this with Mark's notes and oral tradition. But he added a rider of his
        own: Luke certainly had the LOGIA and Mark's notes -- possibly,
        he adds, the Gospels of Mark and Matthew . . ."

        "If Credner is to be held responsible for Q, the palm of the ZQT must
        be awarded to Ch. Hermann Weisse. His _Die evangelische
        Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet_ (Leipzig, 1838)
        took Occam's razor to Mark's "original source"/"notes". There are
        two primary sources, Mark and the Logia."

        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
        The New Testament Gateway
        All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
        Mark Without Q
        Aseneth Home Page
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... For some interesting and useful commentary on the question of Holtzmann s views about Luke s knowledge of Matthew, see Edward Hobbs s A Quarter Century
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 15, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          On 15 Dec 99, at 7:25, Steven Craig Miller wrote:

          > To: Stephen C. Carlson,
          >
          > << Who is the father of the Two-Source Hypothesis: Credner or Weisse? Most
          > of my sources (Farmer, Stoldt, Boismard) claim that Weisse (1838) is the
          > first to conceive of the 2SH, but Bo Reicke claims that Credner (1836)
          > was. Who's right? >>
          >
          > I have been wanting to address this very issue to the list for some time,
          > so I'm glad that you have gotten around to asking this question.
          >
          > William R. Farmer [1994] writes:
          >
          > << This hypothesis [the Two-Source Hypothesis] was first formulated by
          > Christian Hermann Weisse in 1838, then popularized through the
          > epoch-making work of Holtzmann published in 1863 and thereafter adopted by
          > an ever-increasing number of critics until by Bultmann's student days
          > before World War I, it was regarded in many universities as an assured
          > result of nineteenth-century New Testament criticism >> (203).
          >
          > The problem I have is this, Holtzmann in 1863 did not hold the same 2SH
          > which I was taught! Holtzmann believed in a ur-Marcus as a source, not
          > that our gospel of Mark was a source. IMO these are two distinct
          > hypotheses. After 1880 (according to Farmer) Holtzmann changed his mind
          > and held that Mark was used by Matthew and Luke, but by then he held that
          > Luke had used Matthew (see Farmer 1964,1976:86n62). Thus Holtzmann is NOT
          > the (or even "a") father of the 2SH, but rather he now appears to have
          > been the father of the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis! Or, I guess that should
          > be the Holtzmann-Farrer-Goulder hypothesis! But the 2SH, as I was taught
          > it, that is, as Mark as a source, doesn't seem to have been seriously
          > advocated until the 20th century in England!

          For some interesting and useful commentary on the question of
          Holtzmann's views about Luke's knowledge of Matthew, see Edward
          Hobbs's "A Quarter Century Without Q", reproduced on the Mark
          Without Q Web Site at:

          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/hobbs.htm#Back5

          I don't think it would be write to see Holtzmann (or Simons) as father
          of the Farrer Theory, though, since there is no question of their
          dispensing with Q.

          Clearly Ur-Markus was still enormously influential even into the
          beginning of the twentieth century -- one only has to look at Streeter
          & Hawkins and others in the Oxford school to see how far countering
          the theory was a major concern. Indeed, Streeter's discussion of the
          Minor Agreements, for example, is primarily about countering Ur-
          Markus and not about the question of Luke's use of Matthew.

          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
          The New Testament Gateway
          All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
          Mark Without Q
          Aseneth Home Page
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... Thank you. ... You are correct about Holtzmann, but you should not let Farmer s imprecision lead you to believe that Weisse in 1838 held to an Ur-Markus
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 15, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            At 07:25 AM 12/15/99 -0600, Steven Craig Miller wrote:
            >I have been wanting to address this very issue to the list for some time,
            >so I'm glad that you have gotten around to asking this question.

            Thank you.

            >William R. Farmer [1994] writes:
            >
            ><< This hypothesis [the Two-Source Hypothesis] was first formulated by
            >Christian Hermann Weisse in 1838, then popularized through the epoch-making
            >work of Holtzmann published in 1863 . . . >> (203).
            >
            >The problem I have is this, Holtzmann in 1863 did not hold the same 2SH
            >which I was taught! Holtzmann believed in a ur-Marcus as a source, not that
            >our gospel of Mark was a source. IMO these are two distinct hypotheses.

            You are correct about Holtzmann, but you should not let Farmer's
            imprecision lead you to believe that Weisse in 1838 held to an
            Ur-Markus (Weisse later did, though, in 1856). Although "distinct"
            hypothesis, the Mark/Q 2SH is closely related to the Ur-Markan
            Hypothesis, depending on how much Ur-Markus is allowed to differ
            from Mark.

            >After 1880 (according to Farmer) Holtzmann changed his mind and held that
            >Mark was used by Matthew and Luke, but by then he held that Luke had used
            >Matthew (see Farmer 1964,1976:86n62). Thus Holtzmann is NOT the (or even
            >"a") father of the 2SH, but rather he now appears to have been the father
            >of the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis! Or, I guess that should be the
            >Holtzmann-Farrer-Goulder hypothesis! But the 2SH, as I was taught it, that

            Palmer, LOGIC OF GOSPEL CRITICISM (1968) p.140, seems to be confused on
            this point as well. When Holtzmann came to accept Luke's use of Matthew,
            he used that finding to jettison Ur-Markus in favor of Mark. Holtzmann
            kept Q, though. Thus, Holtzmann 1881 was a 3SHer, not a FHer. Thus, one
            should not read Farmer here as stating that Holtzmann abandoned Q (Lambda);
            he did not.

            As for the father of the FH, it appears to me in my research that G. Ch.
            Storr (1786) considered it as a possibility but in the end favor some
            solution with a Hebrew text. Marsh (1801) listed it as a possibility
            but did not endorse it. The FH was then adopted but Ropes (1934) and
            Enslin (1938) but without substantial argumentation. Finally, Farrer
            (1955) made the first extended case for the hypothesis that now bears
            his name.

            >But the 2SH, as I was taught it, that
            >is, as Mark as a source, doesn't seem to have been seriously advocated
            >until the 20th century in England!

            And in 1899 by the Paul Wernle.

            >So, if the choice is between Weisse (1838) or Credner (1836), IMO the
            >answer is neither! For neither of them held that Mark was the source for
            >Matthew and Luke.

            As for Weisse (1838), see above.

            The history of the 2SH is complicated by the presence of many similar
            theories, all trying to account for the so-called Mark-Q overlaps in
            different ways. (I would prefer to label Mark-Q overlaps as "para-Markan
            material" in order to identify this matter while prescinding from the
            question of Q.)

            The para-Markan material presents a difficult challenge for a pure
            Two-Source Theory: they are close agreements between Matthew and Luke
            that do not belong in Mark, but they are narrative material that does
            belong in a generically pure sayings source. In response to this
            problem, Mark/Q theorists have generally come up with the following
            ways of handling this:

            1. Locate the para-Markan material in a proto-Mark (Ur-Markus). This
            is the solution favored by Weisse (1856), Holtzmann (1863), and indeed
            many of the scholars until the 20th century. The problem with this is
            that it creates a second hypothetical document and, when Ur-Markus is
            closely looked at outside of the para-Markan material, it becomes almost
            indistinguishable from Mark.

            2. Locate the para-Markan material in Q, as done by Weisse (1838), Wernle
            (1899), Streeter (1924), as well as most modern scholars. Although this
            violates the pure sayings-source-ness of Q and creates difficulties in
            genre for Q, it is nonetheless adopted as causing the least difficulties
            for the 2SH overall. I suspect that the indeterminancy of the hypothetical
            Q actually has helped, rather than has hurt, the 2SH.

            3. Locate the para-Markan material in Matthew, with subsidiary dependence
            of Luke on Matthew. This is the 3SH, advocated by Simons/Holtzmann (1881),
            Morganthaler, Gundry, and, on Synoptic-L, Ron Price. Here, Occam's Razor
            is felt to be a serious problem.

            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
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... Thanks, Mark. Despite your helpful cite to Goulder, I still don t have a good understanding of Credner. How many other sources did Credner postulate for
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 15, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              At 02:46 PM 12/15/99 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
              >Cf. Goulder, _Luke_, p. 30: "Credner is the inventor of Q."

              Thanks, Mark. Despite your helpful cite to Goulder, I still don't
              have a good understanding of Credner. How many other sources did
              Credner postulate for Mark, Matthew and Luke? For what it is worth,
              Holtzmann's LEHRBUCH gives Credner scarse attention, with most of
              his comment in the following sentence on page 336:

              Credner dagegen hielt sich an die von Schleiermacher (StKr 1832, S. 735 f.)
              gemachte Entdeckung einer Spruchsammlung des Apostels Matthäus, während
              unser jetziger Mt, dessen Nichtapostolicität gleichzeitig F. L. Sieffert
              erwiesen hatte (Ueber den Ursprung des 1. kan. Evgliums 1832), eine
              Combination dieses Werkes mit Mr als dem ältesten Evglm darstelle.

              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
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.