Analysis Of Blomberg 's ' The King Of The Mountain Scholastic Debate '
732 WordsOct 8, 20153 Pages
This week’s reading takes a more in depth look at the current synoptic problem. Blomberg lightly discusses the main hypotheses (Oxford, Griesbach, and Q) by engaging in their strengths and weaknesses alike. He also discusses the possible synoptic sources, mainly “L”, “M”, and “Q”. He does briefly relay some more historical figures, early church fathers mostly, and their seemingly archaic views on synoptic priority compared to the scholastic achievements in more recent eras.
McKnight gives a closer look at the Oxford or “two-source” hypothesis. He strives to show the Oxford hypothesis as winning the king-of-the-mountain scholastic debate using the various scholars who have debated the heaviest in favor of the Markan priority, mainly Streeter. Even as passionately as McKnight stands on this on-going biblical debate, Farmer gives just as obsessive a plea for Matthean priority as he discusses the Griesbach or “two-gospel” hypothesis. However, Farmer puts his discussion into terms less eloquently than McKnight does. Farmer very succinctly plots his discussion into steps as if teaching to a room of theological second-graders. While, as a scientist myself, I can appreciate the calculative style he uses to win the spot at the top of the mountain, I feel that this debate is scarcely that simple of an answer.
The synoptic problem itself still challenges me. When this debate was first revealed to me in an undergraduate course, a most basic biblical overview, I fancied myself on the