Thursday, May 31, 2007

Synoptic Problem Poll

I am a little concerned with some of what I'm reading across the blogworld tonight regarding the results of the Synoptic Problem Poll on Novum Testamentum. Although it is fun to see what the blogging world thinks about this, it would be completely inaccurate to interpret the results of the poll to mean that the Two/Four-Source Hypothesis is losing ground in the Academy, or that the Academy is flirting with the Augustinian model, or that it has found the Farrer hypothesis convincing. Although this might be happening in the blogging world, it is not happening in the Academy. Quelle still reigns there.


Brandon W. said...

I agree completely with your assessment. If we were to limit this to members of SBL or SNTS, I know for certain that the results would look quite differently. I don't even think that the poll represents what most bibliobloggers think about the synoptic gospels because some of the traffic is coming from sites that aren't academically focused on biblical studies.

Mark Goodacre said...

I agree partly with your assessment, April. I think there is less enthusiasm for Q now than there was even as little as 5-10 years ago, as I know from many comments / reviews / articles on the topic in recent times. On the other hand, I think Marcan Priority remains pretty strong in the academy; I see Q as the element of the 2ST that is weakening. But my perspective is, no doubt, skewed since I have a stake in this debate. I may blog a few reflections on this interesting issue later.

Jim Deardorff said...

I'm still appalled that the "academy" cannot see that if Mark is placed after Matthew, as with the external evidence, it shows the writer of Mark to have been anti-Jewish as well as being against the Jewish disciples. It seems to be beyond their comprehension that 19th-century theologians and exegetes would want to place Mark first largely to alleviate this unspeakable problem. It is similarly appalling that they are unable or unwilling to recognize that Matthean priority solves more puzzles than does Markan. Does it take a totally independent scholar to notice such things and act upon them? The problem of faith-based scholarship that April has blogged on has been around for a long time.

Although I might be tempted to place the higher-than-expected vote for Matthean priority on a growing awareness of the Modified Augustinian Hypothesis, as on my web page. I'm pretty sure that Mark Goodacre is correct in the analysis in his blog, that factors such as the Augustinian hypothesis being first on the voting list were responsible.

Jim Deardorff