Talk:Farrer hypothesis

Comments

The Farrer hypothesis is a subject I am interested in, so I'd like to develop this a bit. I've added a longish summary of the main arguments in Farrer's 'On Dispensing with Q'. I hope to come back shortly and add some more recent arguments, especially those of Goodacre based on the agreements between Luke and Matthew. It's the first time I've added anything more than a couple of sentences to a Wikipedia article, so I'm very open to advice on things like sections, layout etc - it's all a bit new...Matruman (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a refimprove tag on this article from over a year ago. I have added one reference to a paper by Goulder to back up the summary argument for the hypothesis, but I'm loath to rewrite the main sections so that they can be given more references. The point is that I deliberately originally wrote the article by reference to the two main primary sources (Streeter and Farrer). Using secondary sources would enable separate references to be given, but would be a retrograde step, IMO. I have, therefore, removed the refimprove tag. If a more experienced editor wants to put it back in, I'd be happy to try and improve it further, but I'd appreciate some suggestions about how to solve the quandary.Matruman (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The obvious references to add would be the books by Goodacre, who seems to be the most prominent champion of the Farrer theory nowadays. There's The Case Against Q to argue the theory, as well as The synoptic problem: A way through the maze for a balanced and somewhat introductory view. The latter nicely summarizes the arguments for and against in bullet points, and interestingly, it also begins with the case against Farrer followed by the case for. Actually (after discussing and agreeing with Marcan priority), it's more like the case for Q followed by the case against. So, what you've done is precedented and makes sense, at least.

Breaking it down more closely, a discussion of the Farrer theory would be more complete if not just contrasted to the 2SH. Marcan priority, on which they agree, is central, though this is hardly the best place to collect those arguments. Rejection of the 2SH can just as well lead to the Wilke (Matthaean posteriority) hypothesis or the 3SH. So, the questions are, firstly, why we should think Luke used Matthew rather than vice versa, and secondly, why, assuming Luke did make some use of Matthew, we should reject the much-reduced Q entirely. Of course, you can deal with these point by point, but it all has to come together into a coherent gestalt.

I'm working on overhauling the Synoptic gospels/Synoptic problem page at present. My plan is to do no more there than describing what the various theories are, leaving the arguments entirely to the respective articles dedicated to each theory. So, when that's ready I'll want to come back and polish these up.

Thanks, Matruman!

--SlothMcCarty (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, there's definitely a chunk of that in The Case Against Q, if I can find it in the chaos that is my bookshelves... If I get the chance I'll try and put up at least the basics of what you are suggesting here, so you've got a polishing rather than a complete creation job when you get back to this! Thanks very much for the advice, Matruman (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Arguments against and for

This article puts the arguments against before the arguments for. While it's understandable in terms of the historical development of this hypothesis, it puts the hypothesis in a negative light. However, since the Farrer hypothesis originated as a response to Streeter, I'm not sure how to go about reworking it. Does anybody have any thoughts or suggestions? Aardvark92 (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Delbert Burkett expounds on Streeter's arguments with clarity and force in Chapter 1 of Rethinking the Gospel Sources, Volume 2: The Unity and Plurality of Q, (2009) by engaging in a direct dialogue with Mark Goodacre in The Case Against Q, (2002). Streeter's most compelling arguments are his arguments based on order and alternating primitivity because they are independent of any a priori assumptions about the existence of Q. That said, Streeter's arguments opposing the Farrer hypothesis should follow rather than lead in an article about the Farrer hypothesis. Ignocrates (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Critically missing from this article is a discussion of the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. Michael Goulder challenged the hypothesis of the independence of Matthew and Luke in his article Putting Q to the Test by framing the problem as a hypothesis test, i.e., if the null hypothesis - that Matthew and Luke are independent of each other - can be shown to be false using the minor agreements, then the alternative hypothesis - that Luke was dependent on Matthew - must be true (assuming it can be shown to have equal or greater explanatory power). Mark Goodacre elevated this proposal to the level of a science in this 1996 book Goulder and the Gospels by choosing 6 examples of minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark that are very difficult to refute. He focuses the debate with three clear examples in The Case Against Q. All of this needs to be carefully detailed in the article. Goodacre also develops important arguments demonstrating the improbability of narrative content within a Q document using narrative criticism in the same book. Imo, the combined arguments based on the minor agreements and narrative criticism against the strict definition of the 2SH expounded by Frans Neirynck and Christopher Tuckett have forced a retreat to a relaxed form of the 2SH in which Matthew and Luke are not completely independent (because of textual corruption) or there is some ambiguity about what version of "Mark" was used as a source by Matthew and Luke under the assumption of Markan Priority (not the canonical Mark of scholarly consensus but a different text-type or a proto- or deutero-Mark). See Is Q a Juggernaut?/Falsification for Goulder's comments on this special pleading. Ignocrates (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but feel like putting Farrer's responses inline after each of Streeter's arguments is listed biases the reader in favour of the theory. 66.48.27.161 (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Farrer hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201122628/http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/farrer.htm to http://ntgateway.com/Q/Farrer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)