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

[Synoptic-L] Fwd: from David Peabody: Re. Fallacies at the Heart of Q

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 07:44:29 -0500 Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at the Heart of Q From: David Barrett Peabody To:
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 6, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      ------- Forwarded message follows -------

      Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 07:44:29 -0500
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at the Heart of Q
      From: "David Barrett Peabody" <peabody@...>
      To: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>,


      Stephen,

      See E. P. Sanders, *The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition*
      SNTSMS 9
      (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1969) "Appendix II. Suggested
      Exceptions to the Priority of Mark," pp. 290-293.

      Sanders lists 34 such passages, gleaned from the works of a variety of
      advocates of Markan priority.

      To this list, Sanders adds another 12 passages noted by Stanton,
      [*The
      Gospels as historical documents, Part II, pp. 142-5] which Stanton
      "thinks must have stood otherwise in the Mark used by Matthew and
      Luke, since one or the other seems to have an earlier form."

      Helmut Koester has also provided a significant collection of passages
      he would explain in a way somewhat like Stanton. See Helmut
      Koester,
      "History and Development of Mark's Gospel (From Mark to *Secret
      Mark*
      and "Canonical" Mark)," in *Colloquy on New Testament Studies. A
      Time
      for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches* ed. Bruce C. Corley
      (Macon, GA:
      Mercer University Press, 1983) 35-57.

      Most of the classical advocates of Markan priority in nineteenth
      century Germany also called attention to such "less primitive"
      passages in Mark and proposed either a Deutero-Marcus or an Ur-
      Marcus
      to explain them.

      For this reason and others, B. H. Streeter claimed, "I have also, I
      hope --- by a new use of the MS. evidence available --- finally
      disposed of the troublesome phantom of an 'Ur-Marcus' (or early
      version of Mark) which has for too long haunted the minds of
      scholars." *The Four Gospels* (New York: Macmillan, 1925) xiii. His
      section of this same book on "The Overlapping of Q and Mark" is also
      relevant to your claims below (pp. 186-191), but Streeter's earlier
      work on this "problem" for Markan priority is "cleaner" and more
      detailed in "St. Mark's Knowledge and Use of Q" [in *Studies in the
      Synoptic Problem* (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1911) 165-
      183].

      I, therefore, find it difficult to accept your claim that "few
      scholars who have argued for Markan priority have even taken the
      trouble to discuss the parts of Mark that appear less primitive than
      Matthew and/or Luke." Consequently, I would also challenge your
      faulting of Dungan's observation below on the basis of this claim.

      David Barrett Peabody
      ----------
      >From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
      >To: Synoptic-L@...
      >Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at the Heart of Q
      >Date: Wed, Jul 5, 2000, 9:28 PM
      >

      >
      >Thanks to Mark G. for posting his paper on the fallacies at the
      >heart of Q. I now wish to reply to one of Leonard's comments.
      >
      >At 09:20 AM 7/5/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
      >>That Q and Marcan Priority are inextricably linked should not, of
      >>course, be assumed. This does not mean, however, that a valid (even
      >>if circuitous) argument cannot be made that would show there is
      >>indeed a connection, and more than merely an historical one, between
      >>the theories of Marcan Priority and Q. I believe that Farmer has
      >>attempted to argue this, but I am not sure where.
      >
      >I think it was Dungan, "Mark--The Abridgement of Matthew and Luke"
      >(1970: 1:73, *1985:160-61) who argued that "it seems that the
      >existence of Q has always been essential to the argument for Mark's
      >priority--precisely as the loophole to invoke anytime one finds a
      >pericope that is more primitive in Matthew and/or Luke when they were
      >supposedly using Mark: the blessed overlap!"
      >
      >Dungan's observation can be faulted on the grounds that few scholars
      >who have argued for Markan priority have even taken the trouble to
      >discuss the parts of Mark that appear less primitive than Matthew
      >and/or Luke. Thus, the true reason for the acceptance of Markan
      >priority must lie elsewhere. G.M.Styler was a notable exception, and
      >Styler did appeal to Q or at least an overlapping source of Matthew
      >that is alleged to be more primitive than Mark.
      >
      >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
      >

      ------- End of forwarded message -------
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.