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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.