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

[Synoptic-L] Freudian slip?

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    The latest Introduction to the New Testament (Fortress 2003), by Gerd Theissen, is a translation of a German original that appeared two years ago, published in
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      The latest Introduction to the New Testament (Fortress 2003), by Gerd Theissen, is a translation of a German original that appeared two years ago, published in Munich under the title: Das Neue Testament: Geschichte, Literatur, Religion (2001).

      Theissen gives three arguments in support of Markan priority and the Two Source Theory which he one-sidedly endorses. All of the arguments he gives have been fairly thoroughly discredited by proponents of other sources theories. Theissen thus takes his place in the long line of European scholars who show more interest in holding on to chairs of New Testament studies in prestigious German universities than they do in seriously pursuing the question of the interrelationships between the Synoptic Gospels.

      On p. 29, one finds what is supposed to be the likewise standard scheme representing Theissen's favored hypothesis. What is curious here, however, is that one finds Mark twice in this scheme and Matt not at all. I doubt that Herr professor turned in his manuscript to Verlag C. H. Beck with a ready-made Vorlage of this howler. It is no doubt a typo, probably just in the English translation, but one that contains a deliciously symbolic irony. It represents precisely what happens to Matthew in a Markan priority world. His authentic voice is simply silenced. A few weeks ago I read an article on John the Baptist in one of the most recent standard Dictionaries of the Bible. At the beginning of the article, the author lists "our sources" for the life and ministry of John the Baptist: Mark, Q, and Josephus!

      Leonard Maluf
      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      Weston, MA
    • Karel Hanhart
      Dear Leonard, Although I have lived, studied and taught in the USA in an ecumenical setting, I would consider myself to be a European scholar. I was born in
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Leonard,
         
        Although I have lived, studied and taught in the USA in an ecumenical setting, I would consider myself to be a European scholar. I was born in the Netherlands and received my basic exegetical training and doctorate in Amsterdam. Forgive me for saying that your attempt to polarize American and European scholarship, is not likely to succeed. It appears that you try to further your views on the synoptic problem by creating an imaginative diastasis between two continents. Would you describe that as objective scholarship?
         
        cordially yours
         
        Karel Hanhart  
         
         
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:09 AM
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] Freudian slip?

        The latest Introduction to the New Testament (Fortress 2003), by Gerd Theissen, is a translation of a German original that appeared two years ago, published in Munich under the title: Das Neue Testament: Geschichte, Literatur, Religion (2001).

        Theissen gives three arguments in support of Markan priority and the Two Source Theory which he one-sidedly endorses. All of the arguments he gives have been fairly thoroughly discredited by proponents of other sources theories. Theissen thus takes his place in the long line of European scholars who show more interest in holding on to chairs of New Testament studies in prestigious German universities than they do in seriously pursuing the question of the interrelationships between the Synoptic Gospels.

        On p. 29, one finds what is supposed to be the likewise standard scheme representing Theissen's favored hypothesis. What is curious here, however, is that one finds Mark twice in this scheme and Matt not at all. I doubt that Herr professor turned in his manuscript to Verlag C. H. Beck with a ready-made Vorlage of this howler. It is no doubt a typo, probably just in the English translation, but one that contains a deliciously symbolic irony. It represents precisely what happens to Matthew in a Markan priority world. His authentic voice is simply silenced. A few weeks ago I read an article on John the Baptist in one of the most recent standard Dictionaries of the Bible. At the beginning of the article, the author lists "our sources" for the life and ministry of John the Baptist: Mark, Q, and Josephus!

        Leonard Maluf
        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
        Weston, MA
      • Mark Goodacre
        I ve some sympathy, Karel, with your response to Leonard s post but at the same time I would say that Leonard is undoubtedly on to something about the lack of
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I've some sympathy, Karel, with your response to Leonard's post but
          at the same time I would say that Leonard is undoubtedly on to
          something about the lack of engagement with recent studies on the
          Synoptic Problem on the continent. "European" is of course a
          troublesome term, not least given that the British seem to opt in and
          opt out of thinking of themselves as European depending on their
          mood! Clearly Neirynck is also a very important exception to any
          claim that continental scholars do not engage with recent work on the
          Synoptic Problem. But if we are talking about German speaking
          scholarship, which I think is Leonard's focus, it does have to be
          said that there is precious little engagement with anything outside
          of the Two-Source Theory. I remember spending a long time when
          researching Goulder and the Gospels looking for reviews of, even
          references to Goulder's work in German books and articles. And
          largely in vain. I think the same thing is broadly true in relation
          to material written in the late 1990s and early 2000s. There are, of
          course, exceptions. I'd list Albert Fuchs as one who clearly reads
          and engages with non-German materials on the Synoptic problem. Luz
          knows of Goulder's work (see his Matthew commentary). And there are
          one or two others; but I couldn't help noticing -- to echo Leonard's
          comments -- that in their Historical Jesus text book, Gerd Theissen
          and Annette Merz are more willing to discuss doubts about the
          existence of Jesus than they are doubts about the existence of Q!

          Mark
          -----------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Graduate Institute for Theology & Religion
          Dept of Theology
          University of Birmingham
          Elmfield House, Bristol Road tel.+44 121 414 7512
          Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

          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@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 11/6/2003 11:17:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... Karel, As Mark noted, I was thinking mainly of German scholars. There are a number of Dutch
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 11/6/2003 11:17:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, k.hanhart@... writes:


            Although I have lived, studied and taught in the USA in an ecumenical setting, I would consider myself to be a European scholar. I was born in the Netherlands and received my basic exegetical training and doctorate in Amsterdam. Forgive me for saying that your attempt to polarize American and European scholarship, is not likely to succeed. It appears that you try to further your views on the synoptic problem by creating an imaginative diastasis between two continents. Would you describe that as objective scholarship?




            Karel,

              As Mark noted, I was thinking mainly of German scholars. There are a number of Dutch scholars whose work I have found very interesting, and open to new worlds, by comparison. I think, for example, van Unnik has done some brilliant writing on Luke; and I have been following the careful work of M. J. J. Menken (is he in fact Dutch?) for a long time as well. Even Swiss and Belgian scholars quite often think outside the German box. And certainly British scholarship has many a great light. In fact, I generally prefer European scholarship to that produced in the States. So you seriously misread my intent above.

            As for the Austrian Albert Fuchs, I once taught a New Testament course simultaneously with and next door to his course on the Synoptics, which he was teaching as a visiting professor in the States. At one point during the course I had a session with him in which I attempted to introduce him to some arguments for a late Mark. I must honestly say that, although in other respects a most gracious gentleman, I found him not in the least interested in even entertaining any alternative to the Two-Source explanation of the Synoptic Gospels, other than the slight modification of his own Deutero Mark theory. With the exception of a few very much younger students, the only German scholar I have spoken with who showed the least openness to alternative theories on the Synoptics was the late Jesuit Fr. Lentzen-Deis who taught at Hochschule Sankt Georgen in Frankfurt and at the Biblicum in Rome.

            Lest I give the false impression that I have something against Germans, this could not be further from the truth. I have more and better friends in Germany than I have in any other European country, including Italy where I studied. It is the ideologically iron clad treatment of the Synoptic problem in German Universities that bothers me, partly because I deeply sympathize with the young minds continuously being subjected to such a glaring lack of genuine scholarship.

            Leonard Maluf
            Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
            Weston, MA
          • John C. Poirier
            Dear Karel, The diastasis between two continents that Leonard invokes is anything but imaginative . It is a very good objective description of the state
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Karel,
               
              The "diastasis between two continents" that Leonard invokes is anything but "imaginative".  It is a very good "objective" description of the state of scholarship.

              Let me add, however, that while I think German scholarship has been deficient in its dealings with the synoptic problem, there are many respects in which I wish American scholarship were more German.  If it's a certain "fogeyism" that hurts German scholarship in this one area (and I'm not saying that that's necessarily what it is), I would point out that the same "fogeyism" also saves German scholarship from the sort of rampant trendiness that we find in American scholarship on a number of other issues.  All too often in American writing, citing the currency of a particular theory takes the place of actually arguing for that theory.  (Worst of all, when it comes to hermeneutical issues, many will consider an argument to be successfully refuted by someone simply by associating it with "Enlightenment thinking"!)

              I'm not saying that trendiness isn't a bit of a problem everywhere, but it's much bigger problem in North America.

              Interestingly, the current hegemony of the Two Source Theory seems to benefit from both "fogeyism" (in its neglect to seriously consider newer solutions) and trendiness (in its uncritical appeal to what's current).  I guess this only shows that scarcely any other idea has been so deeply rooted in the collective consciousness of scholarship for as long as the Two Source Theory.


              John C. Poirier
              Middletown, Ohio


            • Richard H. Anderson
              ... Leonard, Although your characterization, as modified, of German scholarship may be accurate, can I ask if you have read Hans-Herbert Stoldt, History and
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In synoptic-l@yahoogroups.com, Maluflen@a... wrote:

                > As Mark noted, I was thinking mainly of German scholars.

                Leonard,

                Although your characterization, as modified, of German scholarship
                may be accurate, can I ask if you have read Hans-Herbert Stoldt,
                History and Criticism of Marcan Hypothesis (1977)(English 1980)?
                I believe Stoldt was born in Germany in 1901. It is a book I think
                you would enjoy.

                Richard H. Anderson


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Emmanuel Fritsch
                ... Would it be possible to produce collectively (on that list or where else ?) a detailed summary of arguments for and against markan priority ? Such a
                Message 7 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  "Richard H. Anderson" a écrit :
                  >
                  >
                  > Leonard,
                  >
                  > Although your characterization, as modified, of German scholarship
                  > may be accurate, can I ask if you have read Hans-Herbert Stoldt,
                  > History and Criticism of Marcan Hypothesis (1977)(English 1980)?
                  > I believe Stoldt was born in Germany in 1901. It is a book I think
                  > you would enjoy.

                  Would it be possible to produce collectively (on that list or where
                  else ?) a detailed summary of arguments for and against markan
                  priority ? Such a summary should contain text examples, references
                  to main scholars, and considerations of methodology.

                  Such an operation should in fact be leaded on all main synoptic
                  hypotheses, but it would be even more usefull for Markan priority,
                  since it is the root of all discussions about synoptics.

                  a+
                  manu

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  ... I am certainly aware of Hans-Herbert Stoldt s book and should certainly have mentioned him as an outstanding exception within German Synoptic scholarship.
                  Message 8 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 11/7/2003 8:23:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, RAnderson58@... writes:

                    > Although your characterization, as modified, of German scholarship
                    > may be accurate, can I ask if you have read Hans-Herbert Stoldt,
                    > History and Criticism of Marcan Hypothesis (1977)(English 1980)?
                    > I believe Stoldt was born in Germany in 1901. It is a book
                    > I think
                    > you would enjoy.

                    I am certainly aware of Hans-Herbert Stoldt's book and should certainly have mentioned him as an outstanding exception within German Synoptic scholarship. I have read in the book, though I never read it through systematically. By the way, the Dutch scholar I was thinking of when I wrote M.J.J. Menken was actually H. van de Sandt (if I remember the name right, and if I have the nationality right). Menken has also done some good stuff, though. Also, I didn't mean to omit reference to French scholarship which has certainly produced some giants of its own. I don't mean only the earlier twentieth century lights like Loisy, Benoit and Lagrange either. Augustin George, for example, was a brilliant and original Lukan scholar in his own right. Of course these French scholars, and perhaps most of the Swiss, Dutch, and Belgian scholars to whom I alluded, also accept Markan priority. The difference between them and the typical German scholar is that they do not hold it with the same ideological rigor, and their work on the Gospel texts is usually quite independent of, or relatively uninfluenced by this particular source theory.

                    Leonard Maluf
                    Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                    Weston, MA
                  • Richard H. Anderson
                    ... where ... It sounds like you would like me to write a book! I first read this book perhaps ten years ago and have glanced at it when I have a particular
                    Message 9 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In synoptic-l@yahoogroups.com, Emmanuel Fritsch
                      <emmanuel.fritsch@i...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Would it be possible to produce collectively (on that list or
                      where
                      > else ?) a detailed summary of arguments for and against markan
                      > priority ? Such a summary should contain text examples, references
                      > to main scholars, and considerations of methodology.
                      >
                      > Such an operation should in fact be leaded on all main synoptic
                      > hypotheses, but it would be even more usefull for Markan priority,
                      > since it is the root of all discussions about synoptics.
                      >
                      It sounds like you would like me to write a book!

                      I first read this book perhaps ten years ago and have glanced at it
                      when I have a particular question. I think its value in that it is
                      meticulous. However, the definition of meticulous includes "careful
                      about trivial matter" which say lot about the debate on the synoptic
                      problem and this book's view of the minor agreements. Stoldt thinks
                      the minor agreements are significant and a problem for the Marcan
                      Hypothesis while the true believers think the minor agreements are
                      trivial. The full length book will have to wait another day. At
                      quick goggle search reveals you can buy this book used for nine
                      dollars in paperback plus shipping and handling.

                      Richard H. Anderson


                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Karel Hanhart
                      Dear Leonard, Since I responded to you first, I address these remarks to you; they are meant for all who have responded to Freudian slip thus far. 1. As to
                      Message 10 of 10 , Nov 9, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Leonard,

                        Since I responded to you first, I address these remarks to you; they are
                        meant for all who have responded to Freudian slip thus far.

                        1. As to Dutch scholars, yes, Maarten Menken is a Dutch Catholic scholar and
                        so is Huub van de Sandt. I certainly recommend Huub's work on the Didache.
                        Menken specializes in John.
                        2. Concerning Fritsch's request. We could start with the summary on "The
                        Synoptic Problem" by Daniel B. Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. It
                        was reproduced in the Synoptic-L list on 9-11-98 21:35. He offered a good
                        and relatively lengthy statement in favor of Markan priority. I wonder if
                        the directors of this list could reproduce it again. The next step could be
                        that opponents would make clear, point by point, where amd why Daniel
                        went wrong. It might be helpful to identify scholars who support
                        one theory or another.

                        cordially yours, . .
                        Karel Hanhart


                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: <Maluflen@...>
                        To: <RAnderson58@...>; <Synoptic-l@...>
                        Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:28 PM
                        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Freudian slip?


                        > In a message dated 11/7/2003 8:23:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                        RAnderson58@... writes:
                        >
                        > > Although your characterization, as modified, of German scholarship
                        > > may be accurate, can I ask if you have read Hans-Herbert Stoldt,
                        > > History and Criticism of Marcan Hypothesis (1977)(English 1980)?
                        > > I believe Stoldt was born in Germany in 1901. It is a book
                        > > I think
                        > > you would enjoy.
                        >
                        > I am certainly aware of Hans-Herbert Stoldt's book and should certainly
                        have mentioned him as an outstanding exception within German Synoptic
                        scholarship. I have read in the book, though I never read it through
                        systematically. By the way, the Dutch scholar I was thinking of when I wrote
                        M.J.J. Menken was actually H. van de Sandt (if I remember the name right,
                        and if I have the nationality right). Menken has also done some good stuff,
                        though. Also, I didn't mean to omit reference to French scholarship which
                        has certainly produced some giants of its own. I don't mean only the earlier
                        twentieth century lights like Loisy, Benoit and Lagrange either. Augustin
                        George, for example, was a brilliant and original Lukan scholar in his own
                        right. Of course these French scholars, and perhaps most of the Swiss,
                        Dutch, and Belgian scholars to whom I alluded, also accept Markan priority.
                        The difference between them and the typical German scholar is that they do
                        not hold it with the same ideological rigor, and their work on the Gospel
                        texts is usually quite independent of, or relatively uninfluenced by this
                        particular source theory.
                        >
                        > Leonard Maluf
                        > Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                        > Weston, MA
                        > K¦,zz§Ãjº.¢³¦"´zž?Âni




                        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.