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

Re: [XTalk] Kloppenborg reviews Goodacre

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.