Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Recent blog posts

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Actually, speaking of blog posts, it occurs to me that some listers may not be familiar with the blogs. I ve recently been posting a bit on the Synoptic
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Actually, speaking of blog posts, it occurs to me that some listers
      may not be familiar with the blogs. I've recently been posting a bit
      on the Synoptic Problem, in particular reviewing Brice Jones's book on
      Special Matthew and Special Luke:

      http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/matthean-and-lukan-special-material.html
      http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/matthean-and-lukan-special-material_31.html

      Some comments on Walton and Wenham on the Synoptic Problem:

      http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/steve-walton-and-david-wenham-on.html

      And on Mike Bird on Luke's use of Matthew and Q:

      http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/mike-bird-on-lukes-use-of-matthew-and-q.html

      All best
      Mark



      --
      Mark Goodacre
      Duke University
      Department of Religion
      Gray Building / Box 90964
      Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
      Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

      http://www.markgoodacre.org
    • Ronald Price
      Mark Goodacre has kindly brought attention to his recent post on Mike Bird et al. who are attracted to versions of the 3ST. Mark, You claim that if Luke used
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 10, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark Goodacre has kindly brought attention to his recent post on Mike Bird
        et al. who are attracted to versions of the 3ST.

        Mark,

        You claim that if Luke used Matthew, "there is no need" for a separate
        source to explain the double tradition. But surely the right question is not
        "Is there a need?", but "What is the evidence for another source/sources?".
        FT supporters usually avoid investigating this question in depth. Strangely,
        you do think there are other sources but (unless I've missed something) you
        have never delineated them in detail. Anyway it is very difficult to see the
        logic by which a single extra source is apparently ruled out, whereas
        multiple extra "sources" are taken to be quite plausible, especially as the
        single extra source is arguably historically attested (by Papias).

        I wonder if the above-mentioned post indicates that you are beginning to
        treat the 3ST as seriously as you have for long wanted 2ST supporters to
        treat the FT. :-) Because the 3ST is 'in between' the 2ST and the FT, it
        might turn out to have the best of both worlds, combining the 2ST's
        adeptness with aphorisms with the FT's adeptness with DT non-aphoristic
        material. It would thus have more explanatory power than either of its close
        rivals!

        Ron Price,

        Derbyshire, UK

        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_meri.html




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.