Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Marcan Priority a Protestant Thing, acc. to Duncan Graham Reid

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    21

    Marcan Priority a Protestant Thing, acc. to Duncan Graham Reid

    psstein has claimed that Farmer was wrong, back in 1870's there were Catholics quite independently of Prussian pressure who were for Marcan priority.

    Now, I checked, Miracle Tradition, Rhetoric, and the Synoptic Problem, By Duncan Graham Reid actually has a kind of overview of the history.

    I checked name after name in the fairly short chapters on the early history of the controversy.

    And - thanks to wikipedia - all I find is Protestants:

    1.2.1 Origins of the Modern Debate in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries
    1.2.2 Early Twentieth Century Developments

    Hermann Samuel Reimarus - Protestant
    Johann Jakob Griesbach - P
    Ferdinand Christian Baur - P
    Christian Gottlob Wilke - P
    Gotthold Ephraim Lessing - P
    Johann Gottfried Eichhorn - P
    Johann Benjamin Koppe - P
    Herbert Marsh - P
    Karl Lachmann - P
    Johann Gottfried von Herder - P
    Karl August Credner - P
    Heinrich Ewald - P
    Heinrich Julius Holtzmann - P
    Paul Wernle - P
    William Sanday (theologian) - P*
    Willoughby Allen - P
    J. Vernon Bartlet - P**
    Burnett Hillman Streeter - P
    John C. Hawkins - ? - P***
    Philipp Vielhauer - P
    Willi Marxsen - P

    * Since: He was Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis of Holy Scripture at Oxford between 1883 and 1895
    and since: The position of Dean Ireland's Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture was established at the University of Oxford in 1847. This professorship in the critical interpretation or explanation of biblical texts, a field known as exegesis, was instituted by John Ireland, who was Dean of Westminster from 1816 until his death in 1842.
    Dean of Westminster is not a RC position

    ** Since his work "The apostolic age; its life, doctrine, worship and polity" has no Imprimatur or Imprimi potest, an impossibility for a Catholic work back then. If published, that is.

    *** Since in a seminar under the leadership of Sanday.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  2. #2
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,284
    Amen (Given)
    160
    Amen (Received)
    513
    Yes, I admit that I was wrong about Catholics supporting Markan priority in the 1870s. I'd have to look at Baird's History of New Testament Research, which I don't have with me. I still don't see the evidence for Markan priority being pushed as an anti-Catholic measure.

    Look, I'm sympathetic to the Griesbach Hypothesis. It answers some questions that Two-Source has trouble with.

  3. #3
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    Yes, I admit that I was wrong about Catholics supporting Markan priority in the 1870s.
    Thank you for that. This is one point in favour of Farmer, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    I'd have to look at Baird's History of New Testament Research, which I don't have with me.
    Neither have I, sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    I still don't see the evidence for Markan priority being pushed as an anti-Catholic measure.
    I don't think he actually said "pushed" in a very open way.

    More like Catholic scholars in Germany bending to a very ... subtle ... hint that opposing Marcan priority might just be a little bit unhealthy to the academic carreer. Such a thing, if true, doesn't exactly leave the kind of traces you are demanding.

    But one hint this was in fact so (at least on part of Catholic academians bending to an imaginary pressure) would be that the answers of 1911* were felt as obviously Catholic, while Loisy was felt as a kind of traitor.

    * Giving source is of course good form:

    http://www.catholicapologetics.info/...commission.htm
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  4. #4
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,284
    Amen (Given)
    160
    Amen (Received)
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    Thank you for that. This is one point in favour of Farmer, right?
    I would suppose. Farmer does claim that Catholic modernists supported Markan priority, whereas traditionalists supported Matthean priority. That's not true, a number of traditionalists supported the priority of Mark.

    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    I don't think he actually said "pushed" in a very open way.

    More like Catholic scholars in Germany bending to a very ... subtle ... hint that opposing Marcan priority might just be a little bit unhealthy to the academic carreer. Such a thing, if true, doesn't exactly leave the kind of traces you are demanding.
    Perhaps and perhaps not. The issue is that, as far as I've seen in literature written at the time, Markan priority was not used as an anti-Catholic tool. Certainly many German scholars were anti-Catholic and imported those assumptions into their scholarship (e.g. seeing the Jews as a religion of "The Law" opposed to Christianity as a religion of grace).

    As I said, I'm sympathetic to the Griesbach Hypothesis. The issue with it is that it doesn't really give a reason for the existence of Mark.

  5. #5
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    Farmer does claim that Catholic modernists supported Markan priority, whereas traditionalists supported Matthean priority. That's not true, a number of traditionalists supported the priority of Mark.
    You have not named one*. Loisy whom you named was a modernist, as well as being later than the 1870's.

    If you are speaking of Germans after the year 1870 itself, you are using material he took for his case - the cowtowing to what he presumes was Prussian pressure.

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    Perhaps and perhaps not. The issue is that, as far as I've seen in literature written at the time, Markan priority was not used as an anti-Catholic tool.
    If it had been too openly used as such, it would have been resented by Catholics and opposed by them very promptly, even under Bismarck.

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    Certainly many German scholars were anti-Catholic and imported those assumptions into their scholarship (e.g. seeing the Jews as a religion of "The Law" opposed to Christianity as a religion of grace).
    Oh, that one is well and alive to at least back when I was a Lutheran and when I had decided to convert. Those are the guys Bergoglio visited in Lund.

    Do you not get a subtle feeling that this one is easier to support with Marcan than with Matthean priority, since Matthew is more concerned with Jewish law (like the house of David)?

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    As I said, I'm sympathetic to the Griesbach Hypothesis. The issue with it is that it doesn't really give a reason for the existence of Mark.
    The traditional one, or ones (Augustinian, perhaps also Clementinian) does or do.

    * Nor, obviously, has Reid, since I looked through those two sections and found only Protestants.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  6. #6
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,284
    Amen (Given)
    160
    Amen (Received)
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    You have not named one*. Loisy whom you named was a modernist, as well as being later than the 1870's.
    Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, for example.
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    If you are speaking of Germans after the year 1870 itself, you are using material he took for his case - the cowtowing to what he presumes was Prussian pressure.

    If it had been too openly used as such, it would have been resented by Catholics and opposed by them very promptly, even under Bismarck.
    Not really, there were plenty of clear anti-Catholic references in scholarship at the time, even into the twentieth century. You have to read these works, but if you substitute "Jewish" with "Catholic," then it's pretty obvious who's being attacked.


    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    Oh, that one is well and alive to at least back when I was a Lutheran and when I had decided to convert. Those are the guys Bergoglio visited in Lund.

    Do you not get a subtle feeling that this one is easier to support with Marcan than with Matthean priority, since Matthew is more concerned with Jewish law (like the house of David)?
    It's slightly easier to support on Markan priority, yes. I think it has its roots in Lutheran interpretations of Paul, though. Until the mid-1970s, Paul was generally isolated from his Jewish context.

    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    The traditional one, or ones (Augustinian, perhaps also Clementinian) does or do.
    Not really, I think the Augustinian Hypothesis actually makes the issue worse. The Augustinian Hypothesis fails to explain Luke's structure. I can't see why Luke would change both Matthew and Mark's structure. On the Griesbach Hypothesis, it makes sense that Mark would change between Matthew and Luke's order. The "Clementian" Hypothesis, as you put it, is even more problematic. It's indisputable that the three Synoptic gospels (and perhaps even John) stand in some sort of literary relationship to one another. I don't see the evidence for the independence of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

  7. #7
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    21
    I am favourable to these answers:

    Concerning the Author, the Date, and the Historical Truth of the Gospel according to Matthew

    June 19, 1911 (AAS 3 [1911] 294ff; EB 401ff; Dz 2148 ff)

    I: Having regard to the universal and unwavering agreement of the Church ever since the first centuries, an agreement clearly attested by the express witness of the Fathers, by the titles of the Gospel manuscripts, the most ancient versions of the sacred books and the lists handed on by the holy Fathers, by ecclesiastical writers, by Popes and Councils, and finally by the liturgical use of the Church in the East and in the West, may and should it be affirmed as certain that Matthew, the Apostle of Christ, was in fact the author of the Gospel current under his name?
    Answer: In the affirmative.

    II: Should the verdict of tradition be considered to give adequate support to the statement that Matthew wrote before the other Evangelists and wrote the first Gospel in the native language then used by the Jews of Palestine for whom the work was intended?
    Answer: In the affirmative to both parts.

    III: Can the composition of this original text be postponed till after the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, so that the prophecies it contains about that destruction were written after the event ; or should the oft-quoted text of Irenaeus (Ads. Haer. Lib. 3, cap. 1, n. 2), of uncertain and controverted interpretation, be considered to have such weight as to impose the rejection of the opinion more in harmony with tradition according to which the composition of the Gospel was completed even before the arrival of Paul in Rome?
    Answer: In the negative to both parts.

    IV: Can even probable arguments be given in support of that opinion of certain recent writers according to which Matthew did not write a Gospel properly and strictly so-called, such as has been handed down to us, but merely a collection of the sayings or discourses of Christ which were drawn on by another anonymous author, whom they make the editor of the Gospel itself?
    Answer: In the negative.

    V: Can the fact that all the Fathers and ecclesiastical Writers and even the Church itself from its very cradle have used as canonical only the Greek text of the Gospel known under the name of Matthew, not even those being excepted who explicitly taught that the Apostle Matthew wrote in his native tongue, provide certain proof that the Greek Gospel is identical in substance with the Gospel written by that Apostle in his native tongue?
    Answer: In the affirmative.

    VI: Do the facts that the aim of the author of the first Gospel is chiefly dogmatic and apologetic, namely, to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Messias foretold by the prophets and born of the lineage of David, and that moreover in the arrangement of the facts and discourses which he narrates and reports, he does not always follow chronological order, justify the deduction that they ought not to be accepted as true? Or may it also be affirmed that the accounts of the deeds and discourses of Christ, which are read in that Gospel, underwent a certain alteration and adaptation under the influence of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the more mature condition of the Church and are consequently not in conformity with historical truth?
    Answer: In the negative to both parts.

    VII: In particular ought it to be held that there is no solid foundation to the opinions of those who call in doubt the historical authenticity of the first two chapters, in which an account is given of the genealogy and infancy of Christ, as also of certain passages of great dogmatic importance, such as are those which concern the primacy of Peter (16:17-19), the form of baptism entrusted to the Apostles together with the mission of preaching everywhere (28:19f), the Apostles' profession of faith in the divinity of Christ (14:33), and other similar matters which are found in a special form in Matthew?
    Answer: In the affirmative.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •