Re: Prehistory of the Farrer Hypothesis
- Topic: Prehistory of the Farrer Hypothesis
In Supplement To: Jeff Peterson
On 22 Jul 98 (Syn-L archive 676), Jeff responded to Stephen Carlson's
earlier request for information on Eduard Reuss's synoptic views by quoting
William Baird, who characterizes Reuss as an UrMarcus advocate. I have
gotten hold of Reuss's major work, and can fill in a few additional details
for their possible interest as a contribution to the history of our
Eduard (Wilhelm Eugen) Reuss, 1804-1891, Professor in Kaiser Wilhelm
University, Strassburg. History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New
Testament. 1ed (Gm) 1842, 5ed rev (Gm) 1874 [there were also at least two
Fr editions], Eng tr Edw L Houghton, 1884.
In a word, Reuss advocates the order Mk > Mt, Lk (in which Lk follows Mt
but is parallel to it in depending on Mk but not also on Mt). He rejects
the Eichhorn Hypothesis (EH) of a single Proto-Gospel behind all three
Synoptics. He follows Papias in positing two earliest sources in addition
to oral tradition: (1) An Aramaic source lying behind Matthew, and (2)
GMark, as a transcript from the disconnected preaching of Peter, though not
exactly in its present form, but rather comprising Mk 1:21-16:8 (see
p193). In addition to the fact that Lk's reliance on Mk begins at Mk 1:21,
he cites Tertullian in support of beginning GMk with Mk 1:21. He does not
assume (as do many Proto-Markan theorists) that Luke's Great Omission (Mk
6:45-8:26) was not in Proto-Mark, but rather that Luke's copy of Proto-Mark
was defective. He considers that the passion narratives present a special
case, and concludes that there are three independent ones: Mk, Lk, and Jn
(Mt being dependent on Mk). He notes that there is only one clear case (Lk
8:19-21, cf Mk 3:31f and Mk 4:34) where Luke diverges from the historical
order of Mark. The historical order of events in Mt on the other hand is
manifestly confused (the Twelve being narratively introduced before they
are chosen, etc).
Reuss's view of oral tradition is that it originally contained, simply in
the memory of eyewitnesses, both sayings and deeds of Jesus, but that these
gradually became separated from each other in the course of being made more
orderly in response to an increasing need to fix the tradition. Stories
lost their detail and became confused and conflated accordingly. Examples
In section 180, Reuss notes with some archness that every mathematically
possible sequence of the 3 Synoptics has been proposed and defended by
somebody. I give a short version of his list here, as a contribution to
Synoptic History. In addition to Reuss's personally advocated Mk / Mt / Lk
sequence (in which however the FH element of Lukan knowledge of Matthew is
missing), Reuss's catalogue (p178f) runs as follows:
1. Mt / Mk / Lk; no explicit dependency statement. Augustine, Grotius,
Mill, Bentel, Wetstein, T Townson , Hug, Seiler, J Aeschimann ,
Hennell, and "at present" A Hilgenfeld and G D'Eichthal . This
option, assuming that Mk epitomized Mt, is our AH.
2. Mt / Lk / Mk drew from both. Griesbach, Saunier , C G W Theile
, Fritzsche, A F Gfrorer ; essentially also Paulus [1797 and
1822], Stroth, Sieffert , Ammon [Lucas emendator Matthei, 1805]. Some
"modern" theories, complicated by dependence on other sources, omitted
here. The Ammon title makes plain that not all these theories are
equivalent in detail. In the initially stated form, this is our GH.
3. Mk / Lk / Mt, no explicit dependency statement. Storr . "In modern
times this combination has become particularly prominent, though modified
in many ways."
4. Lk / Mt / Mk used both the others. Busching , Evanson .
5. Lk / Mk / Mt drew from both the others. Vogel.
The Proprietor has let us know that the Pub is closing in a few minutes. I
forego the mandatory quotation from Omar Khayyam.
E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts