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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Youtie supports Goulder hypothesis

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    If Youtie is primarily a scholar of Jewish Studies, he might also have in mind the Jewish NT scholar Samuel Sandmel. I don t have the citation handy, but
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 2, 2003
      If Youtie is primarily a scholar of Jewish Studies, he might also have in
      mind the Jewish NT scholar Samuel Sandmel. I don't have the citation handy,
      but Sandmel describes himself as siding with the (unspecified) minority who
      believe Luke used Matthew against those who believe Luke and Matthew used Q.
      I think this was in either _Jewish Understanding of the NT_ (1956, 1974) or
      _Judaism and Christian Beginnings_ (1978) or possibly both.

      Best Wishes,

      Ken

      kaolson@...


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "John C. Poirier" <poirier@...>
      To: <Synoptic-L@...>
      Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 5:58 PM
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] Youtie supports Goulder hypothesis


      > I recently ran across the following passage in Herbert C. Youtie,
      "Response," in
      > *Jewish Languages: Theme and Variations*, ed. Herbert H. Paper (Cambridge
      MA:
      > Association for Jewish Studies, 1978) 155-57: "In considering the problem
      raised
      > by the Christian Gospels, we may leave aside Matthew and Luke as being, in
      all
      > probability, derivative. They are so close to Mark in wording and
      incident that
      > the best current opinion takes Matthew as having used Mark in the
      construction
      > of his life of Jesus, and Luke as having used both Mark and Matthew."
      >
      > Youtie's words are not footnoted, but considering their date, "best
      current
      > opinion" probably refers to Goulder (having recently been endorsed by
      Sanders in
      > a *JBL* review).
      >
      > Anyone have any insight into Youtie's views or influences?
      >
      >
      > John C. Poirier
      > Middletown, Ohio
      >
      >
      >
      > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      Another early supporter of the Goulder hypothesis is Morton Scott Enslin, who predates even Farrer, if I am not mistaken, in rejecting the Q hypothesis, while
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 4, 2003
        Another early supporter of the Goulder hypothesis is Morton Scott Enslin, who predates even Farrer, if I am not mistaken, in rejecting the Q hypothesis, while exhibiting premature triumphalism in touting as a "conquest" of modern scholarship the theory of Markan priority.

        Leonard Maluf

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Tim Reynolds
        ... Surely Markan priority predates the Q idea. It s the default hypothesis. tim Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l List Owner:
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 4, 2003
          on 1/4/03 9:45 AM, Maluflen@... at Maluflen@... wrote:

          > Another early supporter of the Goulder hypothesis is Morton Scott Enslin, who
          > predates even Farrer, if I am not mistaken, in rejecting the Q hypothesis,
          > while exhibiting premature triumphalism in touting as a "conquest" of modern
          > scholarship the theory of Markan priority.
          >
          > Leonard Maluf
          >
          > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

          Surely Markan priority predates the Q idea. It's the default hypothesis.

          tim


          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.