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

Re: [XTalk] Kloppenborg reviews Goodacre

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.