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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Has Goulder sunk Q?

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... 2SH? What McNicol was doing was to attempt to see whether my results in _Goulder and the Gospels_, Chapter 2 would have come out the same way if one used
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 26, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      On 23 Jul 99, at 22:37, Ron Price wrote:

      > Mark Goodacre has recently brought the following on-line document to our
      > attention: http://www.colby.edu/rel/2gh/mcnicols.htm
      >
      > A linguistic test was carried out on two passages.
      > With respect to Matt 3:1-12//Luke 3:1-9; 15-17 the conclusion was that
      > the direction of dependency is "strongly in favor of Luke using Matthew".
      > With respect to Matt 11:2-19//Luke 17:18-35; 16:16 the conclusion was
      > that the 6 to 4 balance was "mildly in favor of Luke's dependence upon
      > Matthew" and "problematic for Goulder's thesis".
      >
      > Please note that in my posting "Q plus Matthew" (12 Jun 1999) I
      > posited that Matthew was Luke's source for Luke 1:1-4:13, and Sayings-Q
      > was Luke's source for Luke 9:57-17:37.
      > This fits the above conclusions better than any other synoptic
      > hypothesis.
      > How many more pieces of evidence do I have to unearth before you folk
      > start taking the 3SH as the most serious threat to the predominant
      2SH?

      What McNicol was doing was to attempt to see whether my results in
      _Goulder and the Gospels_, Chapter 2 would have come out the
      same way if one used different criteria, specifically Collison's and
      Tevis's criteria favoured by contemporary Griesbachian scholars. He
      deliberately chose the two passages that I had isolated for special
      comment at the end of the chapter and came up with roughly similar
      results. If you wanted to base anything on this kind of vocabulary
      study, you would need to base it on the entirety of my results in that
      chapter (or re-do all the QC words using Collison & Tevis) and not
      just on those two passages. But I think that the study, as I have
      indicated before on the list, only really has value in the testing
      Goulder's hypothesis, for which it was devised. I do not think that it
      transfers easily to the testing of other hypotheses.

      Mark
      --------------------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
      Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      The New Testament Gateway
      Mark Without Q
      Aseneth Home Page
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.