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

Re: [Synoptic-L] New way to misrepresent Goulder

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Thanks for this, Ken. An interesting footnote to this: when Goulder criticised the coining of the term Two Gospel Hypothesis , he added that my own theory,
    Message 1 of 4 , May 22, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for this, Ken. An interesting footnote to this: when Goulder
      criticised the coining of the term "Two Gospel Hypothesis", he added
      that 'my own theory, which is well-known to the Griesbachians, is
      also a Two-Gospel hypothesis, with Mark and Matthew the sources for
      Luke. So there are at least two Two-Gospel hypotheses. Griesbach
      has been known as the originator of the theory for two centuries, and
      his honourable name should be maintained.' ('Luke's Knowledge of
      Matthew' in George Strecker, ed., Minor Agreements. Symposium
      Göttingen 1991 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 143-60
      (p. 143, n. 1).). I think my own feeling, the more I reflect on
      this, is that one of the best ways of avoiding polemic is to stick
      with the names that the defenders of the hypothesis themselves
      prefer, so I use Two-Source, Farrer, Two-Gospel and so on, after what
      the defenders of each prefer.

      Mark
      -----------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
      Birmingham B15 2TT UK

      http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
      http://NTGateway.com


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • John C. Poirier
      Thanks for this insight, Ken. I have always felt that the label Two-Gospel Hypothesis was confusing, although for a different reason: it sounds too much
      Message 2 of 4 , May 22, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for this insight, Ken.  I have always felt that the label "Two-Gospel Hypothesis" was confusing, although for a different reason: it sounds too much like "Two-Source Hypothesis" (but I understand that that's the point of the label).

        John C. Poirier
        Middletown, Ohio
         

        Ken Olson wrote:

        John,

        Turner may have been confused by the fact that Goulder referred to his own theory as a Two-Gospel hypothesis, though Goulder’s point was that the label was inadequate as a description for a synoptic source theory. Goulder said:

        >>The hypothesis, advocated here by William Farmer, is sometimes referred to by its defenders as the _Two-Gospel Hypothesis_. This practice is confusing, and should be discontinued. The name is intended to stand in contrast with the _Two-Source (=Standard) hypothesis_, and to emphasize that Mark’s sources were our two Gospels, Matthew and Luke. But then my own theory, which is well-known o the Griesbachians, is also a Two-Gospel hypothesis, with Mark and Matthew the sources for Luke. So there are at least two Two-Gospel hypotheses. Griesbach has been known as the originator of the theory for two centuries, and his honourable name should be maintained<< [Michael D. Goulder, "Luke’s Knowledge of Matthew," in Minor Agreements: Symposium Goettingen 1991 (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1991) 143 n. 1.

        Best Wishes,

        Ken

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.