[Synoptic-L] Re: Farrer theory "majority view" in 1928?
- I wrote:>>I'm wondering why does Ernst von Dobschütz in 1928 speak as though the Lukan posteriority/Mark-Matthew-Luke was the "majority critical view"? <snip> Dobschütz does not appear to have accepted a proto-Mark and his arguments refer to Matthew's use of Mark (and Q!). He argues as though arguing against Lukan posteriority.John C. Poirier wrote:>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.
Depends on what kind of Q you're thinking of. Perhaps you mean "Q as the sole source for the Mt-Lk double tradition"? Since Dobschütz still accepted some kind of Q (whilst arguing for Matthew's use of both Mark and Luke), demonstrating rather that Q (of some sort) was quite a persistent and necessary hypothesis regardless.Is this indicative of some hesitancy to take direct dependence seriously back then? Or (as I believe) the notion that some kind of sayings source was obviously thought necessary to explain its incorporation (by either Matthew or Luke) first time around. Nowadays reductionism seems more preferred.It still seems as though Dobschütz was (as a wrote)...>>Writing in an environment of Lukan posteriority [which] meant that von Dobschütz could reverse the dependence between Luke and Matthew>>...even though "Lukan posteriority" is perhaps a misleading description of what was being advocated in Dobschütz's time (if one immediately thinks of the Farrer theory).
Timothy M. Lewis.
Greek Tutor at Whitley College, Melbourne College of Divinity.
BA (Studio Music); Grad Dip (Primary Education); B.Theol (NT; Hebrew Bible)
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.