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

Re: [Synoptic-L] demise of Synoptic-L?

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... Summer vacationing is typically the cause of lulls on academic lists, and it could well be a contributing factor. There may be other reasons, too. I know
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:50 AM 9/13/02 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
      > Thanks, Emmanuel, for doing the statistical analysis I failed to do (as
      >often, you prove more professional than the "professionals"). You and
      >Jeffery have certainly pointed to other factors that enter into explaining
      >the recent lull on Synoptic-L. It looks as if summer vacationing was a
      >major factor this year.

      Summer vacationing is typically the cause of lulls on academic lists,
      and it could well be a contributing factor. There may be other reasons,
      too. I know that some of us, including myself, have been preoccupied
      with increased responsibilities at work. And one of us, in fact, has
      published two books on the synoptic problem in the past year, which I
      hoped would have been discussed more.

      >But I think you also hinted at something else that
      >is very true: many people prefer not to give away their best secrets or
      >evidence on an Internet list, but to reserve them rather for more
      >traditional avenues of writing and publication.

      I don't get the feeling that this is the case for Synoptic-L. In fact,
      the opposite is probably true. A discussion in 1999 directly led to a
      short study being published in NTS, and a discussion here has been cited
      in JBL twice. Last fall saw a flood of activity as David Gentile proposed
      a new statistical approach to the problem, one which I surely hopes gets
      written up and published. I know that Goodacre has floated many of his
      ideas on this and other lists to work out problems before submission for
      peer-review and publication, and that has work out well.

      > I hope this can be the last of introspective posts, but that it will be
      >followed, perhaps, by a rise in postings on topics more directly related to
      >the Synoptic Problem.

      Well, has anyone got a chance to read the recent book, RETHINKING THE
      SYNOPTIC PROBLEM? I am very disappointed. It's idea of "rethinking"
      is to ignore the very viable Farrer theory, reprint Farmer's 1964 write
      up in favor of the Griesbach hypothesis, and include a piece by Scot
      McKnight castigating the field for forgetting Streeter. I never thought
      that a book with the word "rethinking" in the title can be so reactionary.

      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

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 9/13/2002 6:44:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... I had the book out of a library about six months to a year ago and didn t remember that it
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 13, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 9/13/2002 6:44:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, scarlson@... writes:


        Well, has anyone got a chance to read the recent book, RETHINKING THE
        SYNOPTIC PROBLEM?  I am very disappointed.  It's idea of "rethinking"
        is to ignore the very viable Farrer theory, reprint Farmer's 1964 write
        up in favor of the Griesbach hypothesis, and include a piece by Scot
        McKnight castigating the field for forgetting Streeter.  I never thought
        that a book with the word "rethinking" in the title can be so reactionary.



        I had the book out of a library about six months to a year ago and didn't remember that it ignored the Farrer theory. It also didn't strike me as particularly reactionary, with the exception of the part of McKnight's article to which you refer. True, it could have benefited from a good article by a Farrer Hypothesis representative. Are you sure that the Farmer article is a reprint from 1964? I had the impression it was a much more recent, original piece by Farmer, with at least some new argumentation in it, possibly representing his final statement of the argument for the Two-Gospel Hypothesis prior to his death. Am I wrong here?

        Leonard Maluf
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... There is not a lot to this book, only five real chapters, and the introduction from David Alan Black apologizes for not including an article from the
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 13, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          At 10:01 PM 9/13/02 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
          > I had the book out of a library about six months to a year ago and didn't
          >remember that it ignored the Farrer theory. It also didn't strike me as
          >particularly reactionary, with the exception of the part of McKnight's
          >article to which you refer. True, it could have benefited from a good
          >article by a Farrer Hypothesis representative. Are you sure that the Farmer
          >article is a reprint from 1964? I had the impression it was a much more
          >recent, original piece by Farmer, with at least some new argumentation in
          >it, possibly representing his final statement of the argument for the
          >Two-Gospel Hypothesis prior to his death. Am I wrong here?

          There is not a lot to this book, only five real chapters, and the
          introduction from David Alan Black apologizes for not including an
          article from the Farrer perspective or of Linnemann's independence
          view. This is apparently for not having American support.

          Blomberg's introductory chapter 1 fails to mention Farrer, Goulder,
          or Goodacre, even though his discussion of other theories includes
          Lindsey, Huggins (a modern Wilke), and Rist.

          Bock's chapter seems to think that the only alternative to Q is
          Matthean priority, which is not true.

          McKnight's chapter we agree on. In fact, it reproduced one of
          my biggest pet peeves of Streeter: quoting part of a sentence
          from Mark 6:5-6 out-of-context to manufacture a theological
          difficulty in Mark that Matthew presumably corrects. Remembering
          Streeter doesn't mean uncritically accepting all his mistakes.

          The substance of Farmer's piece is right out of his book (actually
          the corrected 1976 edition) with a few paragraphs before and after
          of reminiscences and summation of developments, which are always nice
          but don't advance the case any.

          Osborne's conclusion mainly responds to the previous chapters and
          is very conclusory. (Anyone can say that something is unpersuasive,
          but can they explain why?)

          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

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.