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

Kloppenborg reviews Goodacre

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    As a diversion from the ossuary, those who are interested in the Synoptic problem would do well to read Kloppenborg s review of Goodacre s *The Case Against
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      As a diversion from the ossuary, those who are interested in the Synoptic
      problem would do well to read Kloppenborg's review of Goodacre's *The Case
      Against Q*, conveniently provided online by the RBL at
      http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1932_3151.pdf.
      While Kloppenborg has nice things to say about the book, one is not
      surprised to find out that he is not persuaded.

      Bob
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... I think it is all going to boil down to who s got the burden of proof. While Kloppenborg correctly realized at the beginning of his review that the
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 28, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        At 09:35 PM 10/28/02 -0700, Bob Schacht wrote:
        >As a diversion from the ossuary, those who are interested in the Synoptic
        >problem would do well to read Kloppenborg's review of Goodacre's *The Case
        >Against Q*, conveniently provided online by the RBL at
        >http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1932_3151.pdf.
        >While Kloppenborg has nice things to say about the book, one is not
        >surprised to find out that he is not persuaded.

        I think it is all going to boil down to who's got the
        burden of proof.

        While Kloppenborg correctly realized at the beginning
        of his review that the gravamen of Goodacre's argument
        is that Q is not necessary, Kloppenborg concludes that
        Goodacre has not shown that Luke's use of Matthew is
        necessary.

        This criticism only works if the burden of proof is on
        the Q opponent. But, why should the burden of proof be
        there? Scholarly tradition?

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
      • Emmanuel Fritsch
        ... Not only. In many places in his review, Kloppenborg shows that Goodacre account is not valid. For instance with his assumption that Luke dislike long
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 29, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          "Stephen C. Carlson" wrote :

          > I think it is all going to boil down to who's got the
          > burden of proof.
          >
          > While Kloppenborg correctly realized at the beginning
          > of his review that the gravamen of Goodacre's argument
          > is that Q is not necessary, Kloppenborg concludes that
          > Goodacre has not shown that Luke's use of Matthew is
          > necessary.

          Not only. In many places in his review, Kloppenborg
          shows that Goodacre' account is not valid. For instance
          with his assumption that Luke dislike long discurses,
          and shorten them to 10-20 verses.

          > This criticism only works if the burden of proof is on
          > the Q opponent. But, why should the burden of proof be
          > there? Scholarly tradition?

          This tradition looks grounded, since all theories take their
          position and even their name relatively to 2DH.

          For instance, "MwQH" (Mark without Q hypothesis in Kloppenborg
          review) does not present in his designation that Luke depends
          on Matthew. This title is build as a challenge against 2DH.

          All that to say that 2DH is still the reference. Not just that
          all alternative theories "should" challenge 2DH. In fact, all
          theories "do" it.

          a+
          manu
        • Mark Goodacre
          Thanks to Bob and Stephen for drawing attention to Kloppenborg s review of my recent book; I will not conceal from them or the list my delight that a scholar
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks to Bob and Stephen for drawing attention to Kloppenborg's
            review of my recent book; I will not conceal from them or the list
            my delight that a scholar of Kloppenborg's calibre should take my
            work so seriously and write such a positive and thoughtful review.

            On 29 Oct 2002 at 18:10, Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

            > Not only. In many places in his review, Kloppenborg
            > shows that Goodacre' account is not valid. For instance
            > with his assumption that Luke dislike long discurses,
            > and shorten them to 10-20 verses.

            My claim is not that Luke dislikes long discourses per se but that,
            on the assumption of Markan Priority, we can observe him shortening
            long discourses in source material. This is quite clear in Luke's
            treatment of Mark 4. It is important to grasp the point actually
            being made here. The argument for Q I am dealing with in that
            context (pp. 90-96) is the argument that sees Luke's shortening of
            Matthew's Sermon on the Mount as being inconceivable. I am
            attempting to point out that far from being inconceivable, it
            actually follows Luke's clearly observable practice in relation to
            Mark.

            > This tradition looks grounded, since all theories take their
            > position and even their name relatively to 2DH.
            >
            > For instance, "MwQH" (Mark without Q hypothesis in Kloppenborg
            > review) does not present in his designation that Luke depends
            > on Matthew. This title is build as a challenge against 2DH.

            This explains my preference for the term "Farrer Theory". I toyed
            with using the term "Mark Without Q" or "Markan Priority Without Q"
            and some will remember that that my web site was once labelled like
            that; E. P. Sanders was, I think, the first to use that descriptor.
            However, one of the problems with it is that it does define the
            theory in reaction to the Two-Source Theory and, as you point out,
            does not indicate the theory's take on the relationship between Luke
            and Matthew.

            Mark
            -----------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
            University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
            Birmingham B15 2TT UK

            http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
            http://NTGateway.com
          • Zeba Crook
            ... Frankly I think you way under-sell yourself in implying that there is such a great divide in scholastic calibre between you and Kloppenborg. Said another
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 3, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Mark Goodacre wrote:

              > I will not conceal from them or the list my delight that a scholar of
              > Kloppenborg's calibre should take my work so seriously and write such a positive
              > and thoughtful review.

              Frankly I think you way under-sell yourself in implying that there is such a great
              divide in scholastic calibre between you and Kloppenborg. Said another way, it
              took a scholar the calibre of Kloppenborg to effectively engage a book the calibre
              of yours.

              Cheers,

              Zeb
            • Emmanuel Fritsch
              ... I apologize. I did not read your book, and I misread Kloppenborg. I should have said that your account is descriptive, when Kloppenborg is waiting for a
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 8, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I wrote and Mark Goodacre answered :

                > > Not only. In many places in his review, Kloppenborg
                > > shows that Goodacre' account is not valid. For instance
                > > with his assumption that Luke dislike long discurses,
                > > and shorten them to 10-20 verses.
                >
                > My claim is not that Luke dislikes long discourses per se but that,
                > on the assumption of Markan Priority, we can observe him shortening
                > long discourses in source material. This is quite clear in Luke's
                > treatment of Mark 4. It is important to grasp the point actually
                > being made here. The argument for Q I am dealing with in that
                > context (pp. 90-96) is the argument that sees Luke's shortening of
                > Matthew's Sermon on the Mount as being inconceivable. I am
                > attempting to point out that far from being inconceivable, it
                > actually follows Luke's clearly observable practice in relation to
                > Mark.

                I apologize. I did not read your book, and I misread
                Kloppenborg. I should have said that your account is
                descriptive, when Kloppenborg is waiting for a more
                explanatory account.

                a+
                manu
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.