(1) It is perfectly in order to make clear one's critical assumptions
about authorship, sources, dating, etc., if they are tied to one's
contribution to the List, whether suggestion or argument.
(2) It is NOT in order to argue for or against those critical assumptions
on THIS List.
We are a very diverse body, with widely differing
theological positions, critical stances, etc. We share in a common desire
to study the text of the Greek Bible; but sometimes our suggestions or
questions or arguments can only be accepted by those who share in our
personal positions and stances on criticism and theology. We will end in a
kind of civil war if we begin to argue about THOSE matters. Hence we must
not.
My description of the sequence of readings in the GNT which I came
to use was premised in part on the acceptance of Markan priority (where
about 95% of Gospel specialists stand). Hence I was public about that.
Since I have several times read papers at SBL national meetings and have
published articles opposing the Q-hypothesis, my procedure did not build
that in. In this case, only about 25% of Gospel scholars are with me.
(Hence I teach my classes the standard Weisse ("Two Source") hypothesis,
have them read my articles opposing the Q-part of it, in favor of the Ropes
hypothesis--but then I have them write their papers on the basis of the
majority position, which is where most of the literature is.)
My praise of Luke's stylistic genius similarly made clear that I do not
hold to hypothetical "lost" sources which inhibited his style. Those who
DO hold to them explain Luke's styles on something other than his genius.
I asked no one to agree with me (though here, the majority do, which proves
nothing);\--only to know where I was coming from.
Edward Hobbs
------------
Carl Conrad wrote---->
Ward's demurrer is certainly in order. Whether or not the hypothesis of
Marcan Priority is demonstrable, nobody is obliged to accept (or reject)
the assumption of any list member regarding that hypothesis. This is not,
in fact, the place to argue for or against that hypothesis or any other
involved in the thorny area of Source Criticism. I would only note that,
just as it is not possible in every instance to hide one's theological
convictions in posts to the list (I think most readers can discern such
convictions even where they are not openly expressed), so also it may even
be helpful to state openly, where appropriate, one's stance on the synoptic
question if the suggestion being proffered is predicated on that assumption
(as was Edward's suggested sequence of readings in Beginning NT Greek
yesterday). These things will impinge often enough upon our discussions of
the Greek Biblical text and of teaching Biblical Greek, but they do not
call for opening the list to theological debate or to airing the whole
controversial area of "Higher" Textual Criticism.