No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
William R. Farmer's history of the debate on the Synoptic Problem contains the following footnote:
Baur answered Hilgenfeld in his Das Markuseaangeliwn, Tübingen, 1851, and the two carried on the debate for years in the Theologische Jahrbücher. This debate is worthy of thorough analysisand evaluation.
When I was invited to read a paper at this year's meeting at Tübingen with the understanding that the paper should deal if possible with some aspect of the work of the Tübingen school of the mid-nineteenth century, this seemed to be an appropriate occasion to take up Professor Farmer's challenge.
page 355 note 1 Farmer, W. R., The Synoptic Problem (Dillsboro: WNC, 2 1976), p. 30, n. 50.Google Scholar
page 355 note 2 These articles are: Hilgenfeld, A., ‘Neue Untersuchungen über das Markusevangelium, mit Rücksicht auf Dr. Baurs Darstellung’, Th. Jb. (1852), pp. 102–32, 259–93Google Scholar; Baur, F. C., ‘Rückblick auf die neuesten Untersuchungen über das Markusevangelium’, Th. Jb. (1853), pp. 54–93.Google Scholar
page 355 note 3 Baur, F. C., Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhältniss zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung (Tübingen, 1847), pp. 394–7.Google Scholar
page 355 note 4 Zeller, E., ‘Über den dogmatischen Charakter des dritten Evangeliums. Mit besonderer Rücksicht auf sein Verhältniss zur Apostelgeschichte und zum Johnnesevangelium’, Th. Jb. (1843), Pp. 393–7.Google Scholar
page 356 note 1 Schwegler, A., Das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den Hauptmomenten seiner Entwicklung. 2 vols. (Tübingen, 1846)Google Scholar. Baur also refers to a (Saxon) anonymous writer of a work called Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre Verfasser und ihr Verhältniss zu einander (Leipzig, 1845)Google Scholar. He regards this work as eccentric in parts, but notes with approval that its treatment of Luke follows the Zeller-Schwegler line.
page 356 note 2 Ritschl, A., Das Evangelium Marcion und das kanonische Evangelium des Lukas (Tübingen, 1846).Google Scholar
page 356 note 3 Baur, F. C., ‘Über die Composition und den Charakter des johanneischen Evangeliums’, Th.jb. (1844), 536–85.Google Scholar
page 356 note 4 Baur, F. C., ‘Der Ursprung und Character des Lukasevangeliums, mit Rücksicht auf die neuesten Untersuchungen’, Th.jb. (1846), 453–615.Google Scholar
page 356 note 5 Baur, , ‘Lukasevangelium” (note 4 above), p. 596.Google Scholar
page 357 note 1 Baur, , ‘Lukasevangelium’ (p. 356, n. 4), pp. 596–615.Google Scholar
page 357 note 2 See above, p. 355, note 3.
page 357 note 3 Eusebius, , H.E. 3 39Google Scholar; II I.
page 357 note 4 Krit. Unters. (see p. 355, note 3), p. 540.Google Scholar
page 357 note 5 In a discussion following a reading of the first draft of this paper in a seminar at Perkins Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas, 30 May 1977.
page 358 note 1 Farmer, W. R., pp. 227–8Google Scholar; Burton, E. de Witt, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem (Chicago, 1904), p. 198Google Scholar. In a paper read at the San Antonio Colloquy (May 1977) on the relations between the gospels Professor Roland Frye queried the use of the term ‘canons of criticism’, and it was generally agreed that ‘criteria’ was a more satisfactory term.
page 358 note 2 Baur, , Krit. Unters. (see p. 355, note 3), p. 544.Google Scholar
page 358 note 3 Ibid. p. 548.
page 358 note 4 Ibid. p. 552.
page 358 note 5 Ibid. p. 554.
page 359 note 1 Ibid. p. 562.
page 359 note 2 Ibid. p. 571.
page 359 note 3 Eusebius, , H.E. 6 17.Google Scholar
page 359 note 4 Baur, , Krit. Unters. (see p. 355, note 3), p. 584.Google Scholar
page 359 note 5 Volkmar, G., ‘Über das Lucasevangelium nach seinem Verhältniss zu Marcion und seinem dogmatischen Charakter, mit besonderer Beziehung auf die kritischen Untersuchungen F. C. Baurs und A. Ritschls’, Th. Jb. (1850), pp. 110–38, 185–235.Google Scholar
page 360 note 1 Hilgenfeld, A., Das Markus-Evangelium nach seiner Composition, seiner Stellung in der Evangelien-Literatur, seinem Ursprung and Charakter (Leipzig, 1850).Google Scholar
page 360 note 2 Hilgenfeld, , Markus-Evangelium (see note 1 above), p. 8Google Scholar refers to both Griesbach and Saunier.
page 361 note 1 Op. cit. p. 15.Google Scholar
page 361 note 2 Op. cit. p. 17.Google Scholar
page 361 note 3 Op. cit. p. 18.Google Scholar
page 361 note 4 Op. cit. p. 30.Google Scholar
page 362 note 1 Op. cit. p. 33.Google Scholar
page 362 note 2 Talbert, C. H. and McKnight, E. V., ‘Can the Griesbach Hypothesis be Falsified?’, J.B.L. 91 (1972), 338–68.Google Scholar
page 363 note 1 Hilgenfeld, , Markus-Evangelium (see p. 360, note 1), p. 32.Google Scholar
page 364 note 1 Baur, F. C., Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Ursprung and Charakter. Nebst einem Anhang über das Evangelium Marcion (Tübingen, 1851).Google Scholar
page 365 note 1 Baur, , Markusevangelium (see p. 364, note 1), p. 50.Google Scholar
page 365 note 2 Op. cit. p. 51 n.Google Scholar
page 365 note 3 Op. cit. p. 85.Google Scholar
page 366 note 1 Op. cit. p. 74.Google Scholar
page 366 note 2 Op. cit. p. 81.Google Scholar
page 366 note 3 Ritschl, A., ‘Über den gegenwärtigen Stand der Kritik der Synoptischen Evangelien’, Th. jb. (1851), Pp. 450–538.Google Scholar
page 367 note 1 F. W. Beare, review of Farmer, W. R., The Synoptic Problem in J.B.L. 84 (1965), 295–7.Google Scholar
page 367 note 2 The phrase, I believe, is J. M. Robinson's.
page 367 note 3 Hilgenfeld, A., ‘Neue Untersuchungen über das Markusevangelium, mit Rücksicht auf Baurs Darstellung’, Th. Jb. (1852), pp. 102–32, 259–93.Google Scholar
page 367 note 4 Baur, F. C., ‘Rückblick über die neuesten Untersuchungen über das Markusevangelium’, Th. Jb. (1853), 54–93.Google Scholar
page 367 note 5 Op. cit. (see last note), 57.Google Scholar
page 368 note 1 Op. cit. (see p. 367, note 4), 66 ff.Google Scholar
page 368 note 2 Hilgenfeld, A., Die Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung und geschichtlichen Bedeutung (Leipzig, 1854).Google Scholar
page 368 note 3 Köstlin, K., Der Ursprung und die Komposition der synoptischen Evangelien (Stuttgart, 1853).Google Scholar
page 368 note 4 See above, p. 359.
page 368 note 5 Volkmar, G., Die Religion Jesu (Leipzig, 1857).Google Scholar
page 369 note 1 Hilgenfeld, A., ‘Die Evangelienfrage und seine neueste Behandlung von Weisse, Volkmar und Meyer’, Th. Jb (1860), pp. 381–440, 498–532.Google Scholar
page 369 note 2 See above, p. 355.
page 369 note 3 Farmer, , op. cit. (see p. 355, note 1), 30.Google Scholar
page 369 note 4 But this stipulation was more important for Baur's work on John (see above, p. 356, n. 3) than the synoptists.
page 369 note 5 Sanders, E. P., The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (SLATS Monograph 9; Cambridge, 1969).Google Scholar
page 370 note 1 This is not meant to exclude a comparison of the parallels in the other gospels, a procedure necessary to expose what is unique to and characteristic of the gospel which is being studied.