[Synoptic-L] Farrer hypothesis tested on a parable.
- Hi Karel (and others),----- Original Message -----From: Karel HanhartSent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:06 PMSubject: Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independenceI am reacting a second time on the same mail:You wrote:>As most readers of Synoptic-L know I am an adept of the Farrer theory. The complex issues are best resolved, I believe, by the >theory Matthew received and wrote additional material and needed improvements of Mark. Luke used both Matthew and Mark >and John reflected on all three.1)So, as I am relatively new in the (serious) study of the synoptic problem (although I was introduced to it by an expert - A.F.J. Klijn - already in 1971), I am desirous that somebody shows me step by step how the Farrer hypothesis works in practice.I understand, Farrer hypothesis (FH) assumes (a.o.) :Marcan Priority (for the triple tradition). Mark was written first, taken up by Matthew, and then used by Luke.At the moment I am in discussion with a theologian friend on the (3) polemic parables in Matthew 21.28 - 22.14.As 21:33-45 (the parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants) is in the triple tradition (// Mk 12.1-12; Lk 20:9-19) this may be a good test case for the hypothesis.I am generally NOT in favour of quickly running to a hypothesis which attributes the likeness of the parable texts (especially the ones of Mt and Mk) to one evangelist having derived his version from the other one (usually explained in term of an evangelist having abbreviated, improved upon his collegue or - why not - having worsened the achievement of his collegue due tosome kind of 'editorial fatigue'.)So, what exactly could be all the reasons why we (or I) would have to assume that the Markan version was first and that the Matthean version is (literarily) dependent on the Markan version.If this analysis is already present in some article or other form, I would be happy to be reffered to it.If not, or if the job has only partially been done, I will be happy to have myself convinced (or not) by the discussion on the list.2)As far as your saying: >>Luke used both Matthew and Mark and John reflected on all three >> is concerned, if that laststatement about John is really part of the Farrer Hypothesis, I am (to that part) probably in a different camp.My MA thesis (1998) was on a comparison between Jn 2:13-22 and synoptic parallels, and there I claimed as aresearch result the (historical) priority of John, along but also in elaboration of the arguments by J.A.T. Robinson as given in hismonograph The Priority of John (1985). With him (and many others) I hold GoJ to be fully independent of the synoptics.At the time of writing my thesis, I noted that, as far as the synoptics was concerned, Robinson assumed (general) Markan priority. In my analysis of the temple cleansing pericope I did not much bother about that aspect, asI was primarily phocusing on the priority of John in the whole cleansing 'business', all three synoptics putting the act late, while I tried to argue (a.o.) the certainty and historical reliability of an early cleansing.Because my principle is that all priority cases have to be demonstrated case by case - so also in the (possibly) upcoming discussion -, I will not assume any (priority) position a priori. In general, I confess again, I am not in favour of (quick) dependence solutions, but discussion should show if the dependence conclusion(s) will hold or not.I take as my own (theoretical) position, work hypothesis, assumption or whatever, that both evangelists got the story from their own (independent) source, Mark being connected to Peter and an (in)direct follower of the Lord, Matthew being a writer, apostle.Following Robinson (monograph Redating the New Testament, 1976) I would date both gospels sometime before 70.So Karel, if you like, I offer you a first shot.Best wishesFrides LamérisZuidlarenNetherlands