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

Re: [GTh] The Mark and Thomas Without Q Hypothesis

Expand Messages
  • fmmccoy
    ... From: Mark Goodacre To: Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] extended
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 8, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Mark Goodacre" <M.S.Goodacre@...>
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 11:01 AM
      Subject: Re: [GTh] extended Farrer-Goulder hypothesis

      > Just a word to say that in the example chosen (Matt. 5.3 // Luke 6.20
      > // Thom. 54), I have argued that Luke's version of the beatitude can
      > effectively be understood as his redaction of Matthew; I would see
      > Thomas as dependent on the Lucan version of the saying. (See The
      > Case Against Q, Chapter 7, "How blessed are the poor?"). I mention
      > this because Frank is kind enough to quote from the chapter but in
      > support of a substantially different theory from the one I am putting
      > forward there.

      My intent in making the quote was to use Mark Goodacre as an authority to
      support my assertion that Luke was partial to the poor and that is *all* I
      intended. Judging by what he states above, I so vaguely worded either
      the intro to this quote or else what immediately follows the quote that
      others could (mistakenly!) think that, I was implying, he supports the
      hypothesis I have been examining. I apologize for this verbal ineptness on
      my part.


      > One further footnote -- I have argued that the term"Farrer-Goulder
      > hypothesis", which is not used by proponents of the theory, should be
      > dropped. It tends to be used for rhetorical purposes in that it ties
      > the theory to Goulder's specific version of it, and scholars
      > regularly feel more confident in arguing against Goulder's take on
      > the theory rather than against the theory itself. I therefore tend
      > to prefer "Farrer theory" though I am also comfortable with "Mark
      > Without Q" which is what Kloppenborg is now suggesting as a
      > concession to my concerns.

      Another indication that I suffer from hoof in the mouth disease! I wasn't
      aware that the term "Farrer-Goulder hypothesis" was coined by critics of the
      hypothesis and I apologize for any discomfort that my usage of this term
      caused to any of you. In the future, I will simply call it the "Farrer
      theory". Further, from now on, I will refer to the hypothesis that Matthew
      knew both Mark and Thomas and that Luke knew Mark, Thomas and Matthew as the
      "Mark and Thomas without Q hypothesis"--unless, of course, someone points
      out something objectionable about using this term.

      Frank McCoy
      1809 N. English Apt 15
      Maplewood, MN USA 55109
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.