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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Freudian slip?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
      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 2 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
        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 3 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
          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 4 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
            --- 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 5 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
              "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 6 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
                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 7 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
                  --- 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 8 of 10 , Nov 9, 2003
                    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.