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

Re: [Synoptic-L] One of Histories Little Ironies

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... I think he found the Q hypothesis difficult to square with the kind of creative interpretation and expansion of Mark that Farrer saw in Matthew. To take
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 21, 2006
      On 21/06/06, Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:
      >
      > The below quote doesn't seem surprising to me as the Q hypothesis addresses
      > the double tradition in Mt and Lk. Am I missing something?
      >
      > Mark Goodacre wrote:
      >
      > Farrer's St Matthew and St Mark was published in 1951, the
      > same year as Butler's book, and in the introduction Farrer talks -- briefly
      > -- about how he has never found the Q hypothesis necessary or helpful in
      > expounding Matthew's relationship with Mark.

      I think he found the Q hypothesis difficult to square with the kind of
      creative interpretation and expansion of Mark that Farrer saw in
      Matthew. To take one early example, Matthew 3 would be Matthew's
      creative expansion of Mark 1, drawing in typical Matthean language and
      themes rather than Matthew's conflation of Mark and Q.

      Mark
      --
      Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
      Associate Professor
      Duke University
      Department of Religion
      314 Gray Bldg./Box 90964
      Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
      Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

      http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.