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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Farrer theory "majority view" in 1928?

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... To add to this, Jülicher s introduction (ET 1904) definitely supports Q and spends a little time considering the possibility that Luke used Matthew as a
    Message 1 of 7 , May 28, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      At 07:15 AM 5/28/2004 -0400, John C. Poirier wrote:
      >Tim Lewis wrote:
      >>[snip] I found the article ([by Ernst von Dobschutz,] translated by Robert Morgan) as, "Matthew as Rabbi and Catechist," in The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1983), 19-29. It was apparently originally published in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft(ZNW) 27 (1928) 338-48.
      >>
      >>"The traditional view that saw Matthew as the earliest Gospel, composed according to one tradition as early as the eighth year after Jesus' ascension, continues to excercise some influence even today, and even amongst those who are convinced of the priority of Mark. That usually changes the sequence Matthew-Mark-Luke which we have in our New Testament, to Mark-Matthew-Luke. That is now by far the majority critical view, with some like B. Weiss stressing the total independence of the two later Gospels from one another, wheras others, following especially the work of E. Simons, believe they can prove that Matthew was used by Luke. Apart from the names in the footnote, this is now the view of Jülicher, Feine Appel and Dibelius."
      >>
      >>[snip]
      >>Am I here misreading that Lukan posteriority is being called "the majority critical view"?
      >I think that you *are* misreading: at the beginning of the third sentence in your quotation from Dobschutz, "that" refers to Mark-Matthew-Luke, as indicated in the preceding sentence, but the continuation of the third sentence shows that, as Dobschutz uses it, the term "Mark-Matthew-Luke" *includes* schemes in which Matthew and Luke are independent of one another ("with some like B. Weiss stressing the total independence of the two later Gospels from one another"). Dobschutz therefore does not mean to imply Lukan posteriority when he writes "Mark-Matthew-Luke".
      >
      >Nevertheless, your suspicion that Q skepticism was more prevalent then than now is probably well placed.

      To add to this, Jülicher's introduction (ET 1904) definitely supports Q and spends a
      little time considering the possibility that Luke used Matthew as a subsidiary source
      before rejecting it as "improbable." E. Simons also did not abandon Q, and if I
      understand secondhand explanations of his work correctly (I have not read the original),
      he actually thought that Luke's use of Matthew bolstered the case for Q by allowing
      Q to be more plausible in terms of genre. Thus, I think that "Mark-Matthew-Luke" as
      used here is merely the chronological order of composition not the Farrer theory.

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
      "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@...
    • Karel Hanhart
      Dear listers, Is there anyone who would like to comment on the proposal that a) the Apostles Creed and b) the calling of the first disciples episode in John
      Message 2 of 7 , May 28, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear listers,

        Is there anyone who would like to comment on the proposal that a) the
        Apostles Creed
        and b) the 'calling of the first disciples' episode in John (especially
        Nathanael) might offer external and internal proof of the Farrer theory?

        It is all well and good to cite learned scholars of old - the articles and
        books are numerous - but external and expecially internal proof would carry
        much more weight.

        cordially

        Karel

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
        To: "Tim Lewis" <tlewistlewis@...>; <synoptic-l@...>
        Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 3:26 PM
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Farrer theory "majority view" in 1928?


        > At 07:29 PM 5/28/2004 +1000, Tim Lewis wrote:
        > >Am I here misreading that Lukan posteriority is being called "the
        majority critical view"? Dobschütz goes on to argue for Matthean
        posteriority (also mentioning H. von Soden as an advocate of Matthew's
        direct use of both Mark and Luke), something for which Huggins and Hengel
        have recently argued [Ronald V. Huggins, "Matthean Posteriority: A
        Preliminary Proposal," Novum Testamentum vol. XXXIV (1992), 1-22; Hengel's
        argument is "Postscript: Reflections on the Logia Source and the Gospels of
        Luke and Matthew," in Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of
        Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical
        Gospels (London: SCM Press, 2000), 169-207.]
        >
        > Do have the cite for where von Soden advocates this?
        >
        > Stephen Carlson
        > --
        > Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        > Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
        > "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@...
        >


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • John C. Poirier
        ... While I don t doubt you, Stephen (this all being a matter of running to the library to look something up), we are then left with a problem in the last
        Message 3 of 7 , May 28, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

          >>Tim Lewis wrote:
          >>
          >>>[snip] I found the article ([by Ernst von Dobschutz,] translated by Robert Morgan) as, "Matthew as Rabbi and Catechist," in The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1983), 19-29. It was apparently originally published in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft(ZNW) 27 (1928) 338-48.
          >>>
          >>>"The traditional view that saw Matthew as the earliest Gospel, composed according to one tradition as early as the eighth year after Jesus' ascension, continues to excercise some influence even today, and even amongst those who are convinced of the priority of Mark. That usually changes the sequence Matthew-Mark-Luke which we have in our New Testament, to Mark-Matthew-Luke. That is now by far the majority critical view, with some like B. Weiss stressing the total independence of the two later Gospels from one another, wheras others, following especially the work of E. Simons, believe they can prove that Matthew was used by Luke. Apart from the names in the footnote, this is now the view of Jülicher, Feine Appel and Dibelius."
          >>>
          >To add to this, Jülicher's introduction (ET 1904) definitely supports Q and spends a
          >little time considering the possibility that Luke used Matthew as a subsidiary source
          >before rejecting it as "improbable." E. Simons also did not abandon Q, and if I
          >understand secondhand explanations of his work correctly (I have not read the original),
          >he actually thought that Luke's use of Matthew bolstered the case for Q by allowing
          >Q to be more plausible in terms of genre. Thus, I think that "Mark-Matthew-Luke" as
          >used here is merely the chronological order of composition not the Farrer theory.
          >
          While I don't doubt you, Stephen (this all being a matter of running to
          the library to look something up), we are then left with a problem in
          the last sentence in the quotation from Dobschutz. To what is "this"
          referring? If it refers to the view of "others" (including Simons),
          then, according to your precis, Julicher doesn't belong. But if it
          refers to the wide interpretation of "Mark-Matthew-Luke", then it seems
          strange that Dobschutz would bother to name names at all (or was he
          naming authors of NT introductions? [Did Dibelius write one?]). While
          it is possible that this is a poor English translation, and that the
          original was less ambiguous, that wouldn't relieve the problem: either
          Dobschutz misrepresents Julicher, or he gives three names in a place
          where it would seem a little strange (at least to me).

          As to the references to mere chronological ordering being given in a way
          that looks confusingly like source-critical ordering, this was, I think,
          a constant problem with the way in which the synoptic problem was
          discussed a hundred or more years ago. For example, Abbott and
          Rushbrooke (in the introduction to *The Common Tradition of the Synoptic
          Gospels* [1884]) make chronological claims in a way that *sounds*
          source-critical but isn't necessarily so. I think that this confusing
          language is partly to blame for the so-called Lachmann fallacy, with
          Abbott himself (in a later writing) being one of the principal culprits.


          John C. Poirier
          Middletown, Ohio



          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... Maybe the key word is now . Dobschutz wrote in 1928; my edition of Jülicher is in 1904. Did Jülicher later change his mind? ... That s right, and I
          Message 4 of 7 , May 28, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            At 11:30 AM 5/28/2004 -0400, John C. Poirier wrote:
            >Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
            >>>Tim Lewis wrote:
            >>>
            >>>>[snip] I found the article ([by Ernst von Dobschutz,] translated by Robert Morgan) as, "Matthew as Rabbi and Catechist," in The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1983), 19-29. It was apparently originally published in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft(ZNW) 27 (1928) 338-48.
            >>>>"The traditional view that saw Matthew as the earliest Gospel, composed according to one tradition as early as the eighth year after Jesus' ascension, continues to excercise some influence even today, and even amongst those who are convinced of the priority of Mark. That usually changes the sequence Matthew-Mark-Luke which we have in our New Testament, to Mark-Matthew-Luke. That is now by far the majority critical view, with some like B. Weiss stressing the total independence of the two later Gospels from one another, wheras others, following especially the work of E. Simons, believe they can prove that Matthew was used by Luke. Apart from the names in the footnote, this is now the view of Jülicher, Feine Appel and Dibelius."
            >>To add to this, Jülicher's introduction (ET 1904) definitely supports Q and spends a
            >>little time considering the possibility that Luke used Matthew as a subsidiary source
            >>before rejecting it as "improbable." E. Simons also did not abandon Q, and if I
            >>understand secondhand explanations of his work correctly (I have not read the original),
            >>he actually thought that Luke's use of Matthew bolstered the case for Q by allowing
            >>Q to be more plausible in terms of genre. Thus, I think that "Mark-Matthew-Luke" as
            >>used here is merely the chronological order of composition not the Farrer theory.
            >While I don't doubt you, Stephen (this all being a matter of running to the library to look something up), we are then left with a problem in the last sentence in the quotation from Dobschutz. To what is "this" referring? If it refers to the view of "others" (including Simons), then, according to your precis, Julicher doesn't belong. But if it refers to the wide interpretation of "Mark-Matthew-Luke", then it seems strange that Dobschutz would bother to name names at all (or was he naming authors of NT introductions? [Did Dibelius write one?]). While it is possible that this is a poor English translation, and that the original was less ambiguous, that wouldn't relieve the problem: either Dobschutz misrepresents Julicher, or he gives three names in a place where it would seem a little strange (at least to me).

            Maybe the key word is "now". Dobschutz wrote in 1928; my edition of Jülicher
            is in 1904. Did Jülicher later change his mind?

            >As to the references to mere chronological ordering being given in a way that looks confusingly like source-critical ordering, this was, I think, a constant problem with the way in which the synoptic problem was discussed a hundred or more years ago. For example, Abbott and Rushbrooke (in the introduction to *The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels* [1884]) make chronological claims in a way that *sounds* source-critical but isn't necessarily so. I think that this confusing language is partly to blame for the so-called Lachmann fallacy, with Abbott himself (in a later writing) being one of the principal culprits.

            That's right, and I think that even Abbott and Rushbrooke were aware of it (p. vi):

            "On this point there had been difference of opinion: but the general consent of
            competent critics has, of late years, pointed toward Mark as the earliest of the
            three Evangelists. Or rather, to speak more accurately, it is believed that the
            Gospel of St. Mark *contains* a closer approximation to the Original Tradition,
            than is *contained* in the other Synoptists."

            Of course, the problem with using inaccurate terminology is that even when one
            knows better, it is too easy to forget the distinction and lapse into a fallacy.

            When reading the old stuff, it is help to remember that "priority" generally
            meant "being closer in content to the original" not closer in time to the
            original. In modern time, I think the opposite is made more often. For
            example, just be Q1 is literarily prior to Q2, it does not follow that its
            traditions are closer to the original than Q2. Kloppenborg is certainly
            aware it and is careful to avoid the non sequitur, but that's not always
            the case with others...

            Stephen Carlson

            Stephen Carlson


            --
            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
            Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
            "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.