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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.