tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post8467046498517709836..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Steve Walton and David Wenham on the Synoptic ProblemMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-37996018441024413642012-06-02T13:20:52.814-04:002012-06-02T13:20:52.814-04:00Mark and Steve Walton, there’s a bit of a complica...Mark and Steve Walton, there’s a bit of a complication to the “translation problem” that dates back to the 2nd century, which a modified Augustinian hypothesis (MAH) can well resolve. It relates to the external evidence, which Griesbach made use of -- that Matthew was the first gospel. However, Griesbach did not accept the testimony that it had been written in the Hebraic tongue. Yet he did accept statements that all the Gospels were written early and by their namesakes, without apparently realizing that this was the very portion of this external evidence that was strongly subject to early theological commitment. The Hebraic Matthew portion seems not to have involved any theological commitment. <br /><br />The MAH makes this distinction, and allows that a later translator of Hebraic Matthew into Greek made heavy use of Greek Mark and Luke during his translations. See http://www.tjresearch.info/MAH.htm#MAH-G. This accounts for the excessive verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke as well as Matthew and Mark, with there having been good motivation for this on the part of the translator: he replicated lengthy strings within parallel portions of either Mark or Luke to ensure that the dependence of the new Greek Gospels (Mark and Luke) upon Matthew would not be lost after Greek Matthew appeared and Hebraic Matthew had been speedily superseded.<br /><br />(Steve, you may wonder how anyone could be supporting Matthean priority over Mark these days! However, even the use of the “editorial fatigue” approach indicates many more (and better) examples of Markan "fatigue" relative to Matthew, than vice versa. See http://www.tjresearch.info/MAH.htm#MAH4 .)<br /><br />Is this too much of a complication for the NT consensus to even consider? The writers of Mark and Luke made use of Hebraic Matthew, while the translator of Hebraic Matthew could choose between the Greek of Mark or of Luke in parallel passages (triple tradition). In Goodacre’s example, this translator chose to use ὕστερον as in Luke, which he preferred, over Mark.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-23269014565841363452012-06-02T11:16:58.380-04:002012-06-02T11:16:58.380-04:00Thanks, Jason. Yes, I agree that it's a great...Thanks, Jason. Yes, I agree that it's a great book. I am thinking of adopting it alongside Bart's book and one or two others for my NT Intro. The fact that there is an electronic version is also a help. So it's good to have your recommendation too.<br /><br />Yes, totally agree with your data-led approach. Perhaps my number 1 gripe about the teaching of the Synoptic problem (and my goodness, there are many!) is the refracting of the data through the Two-Source Theory.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-47735501856775686432012-06-02T11:13:43.737-04:002012-06-02T11:13:43.737-04:00I was unaware a second edition had come out. I hav...I was unaware a second edition had come out. I have regularly used the first edition as a supplement for my NT classes in the past. Since I don't like too much secondary literature to get in the way of focusing the students on the primary sources, I've found a number of the chapters in this volume ideal for that "supplementary" role, especially because of the outstanding use of charts and visual information. The student feedback has regularly been that it's easy to read, which is another key for me.<br /><br />One other thing I like is that the chapters do a good job of standing alone, meaning I can assign a few chapters but not the whole volume and know that the chapters will be understood.<br /><br />More on Farrer would be helpful, though, although at this point I just assume I'll have to introduce it fully myself regardless of what resources I include—though the way I've been teaching it data-first has led to some students suggesting it before I get to it.Jason A. Stapleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14195336635217064916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-59271267588985556942012-06-02T11:09:01.320-04:002012-06-02T11:09:01.320-04:00Thanks for your gracious comments, Steve. Interes...Thanks for your gracious comments, Steve. Interesting about the NRSV, something I have also noticed in the RSV. <br /><br />On the issue of future revisions, I would also encourage you to think about the balance between Griesbach and Farrer; even the Griesbach guys admit now that Farrer is the chief rival to the 2ST. Moreover, Griesbach has never had any traction in the UK.<br /><br />And when you want what Lewis Carroll used to call a "pillow problem", I would encourage you to ask yourself whether it can be "unusual behaviour" that Luke "broke up" Matthew 13 when he did that very thing to its source in Mark 4.<br /><br />Thanks again, Steve. I am looking forward to continuing to work through the book.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-47890963894617297112012-06-02T09:55:57.705-04:002012-06-02T09:55:57.705-04:00Thanks Mark; it's kind of you to take our work...Thanks Mark; it's kind of you to take our work seriously enough to engage with it well.<br />Your comments on the Griesbach material are well taken; I'll have a look at this in next revision (which I fear may not be for a number of years).<br />The translation problem you raise is an interesting result of using NRSV (which is our version of choice - and a version which is v. widely used in colleges and universities). The NRSV's editors clearly didn't do the cross-check of the synoptic parallels well enough.Steve Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11329462117282609569noreply@blogger.com