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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.