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

Re: Prehistory of the Farrer Hypothesis

Expand Messages
  • PetersnICS@aol.com
    In a message dated 7/21/98 5:40:18 AM, scarlson@mindspring.com wrote:
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 22, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 7/21/98 5:40:18 AM, scarlson@... wrote:

      <<According to Farmer's quotation (p.52) of Sanday (1872), Ritschl,

      Meyer, Weiss, and Weizsäcker all supported the Ur-Markan variant

      of the Markan Hypothesis. According to Hobbs' "Quarter Century

      Without Q," Simons and Holtzmann (II) postulated Luke's use of

      Mark, Q, and Matthew -- in effect a three source hypothesis.

      Wilke, of course, is known for the order Mark-Luke-Matthew. This

      leaves Reuss and Batiffol. Does anyone know what their views


      William Baird mentions Eduard Reuss as an _Urmarcus_ advocate (_History of NT
      Research_ [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992–] 1.309). I found nothing on Battifol
      in Baird, Kümmel, Neill and Wright, or Coggins and Holden's _Dictionary of
      Biblical Interpretation_.

      The nearest precursor to Farrer I have come across is E. W. Lummis, _How Luke
      Was Written_ (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1915). Lummis's theory
      includes the foundational elements of Marcan priority plus Lucan dependence on
      Matthew as well as Mark, rather than on Q. He complicates things with some
      emendations, including the proposal that Luke's MS of Matthew was damaged and
      that Luke reconstructed a few partially preserved readings in a way at
      variance with extant MSS of Matthew.

      Jeff Peterson
      Institute for Christian Studies
      Austin, Texas, USA
      e-mail: peterson@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.