Is there or should their be a Farrer Section/Seminar at SBL?

I tend to think so. Sure, it might go better at the International SBL, but I do think that maybe we should, if we haven’t already, start one.

Maybe I’m missing it.

Help me out if I’m missing something.

I’d like to see it look at how Matthew and Luke used Mark.

You Might Also Like

6 Replies to “Is there or should their be a Farrer Section/Seminar at SBL?”

  1. Joel,

    As a Farrerian, I can say, honestly, that I could see some benefit from such a section. At the same time, however, I think that the idea of a Farrer seminar is counterproductive to achieving the best level of critical thinking about the Farrer hypothesis. I would probably learn more about the how well the Farrer hypothesis explains the textual data by sitting in on the Q section.

    I think that is one of the tactical errors that the Neo-Griesbachians made: they created little “echo chambers” at the SBL — chambers that insulated them from hearing even the most obvious criticisms that might come from the Two-Document hypothesis crowd.

    I’ve often told friends that organizing a group on the basis of shared interests can lead to “iron sharpening iron”, while organizing a group on the basis of a shared view will more often lead to “cheese sticking to cheese”.

    But, like I said, if you want to organize such a session, I’ll be there.

    1. John, great!

      But, can we do both? Can we organize a Farrer seminar that is divided between two days. One day devoted to examining the expansion of Matthew and Luke based on the Farrer Theory while the second day will be rejoinders from Q and Neo-Griesbachians?

  2. Okay, I can see that. (But the tit-for-tat should be all on one day, in one session — otherwise those attending will be missing something if they don’t go to both sessions.)

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.