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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Goodacre's *Case Against Q*

Expand Messages
  • Eric Eve
    ... classic. John, many thanks for your most interesting thoughts; I also appreciated Goodacre s book. You and others may be interested to know that a critique
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 17, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      John C. Poirier wrote:

      > These are some of my thoughts. I have no doubt that the book will be a
      classic.

      John, many thanks for your most interesting thoughts; I also appreciated
      Goodacre's book. You and others may be interested to know that a critique
      (from the standpoint of the 2DH) of Goodacre's work by Paul Foster (under
      the title 'It is Possible to Dispense with Q?') is due to appear in _Novum
      Testamentum_. Paul has very kindly given me a proof copy of his article,
      which makes a number of interesting points, but I shan't steal his thunder
      by discussing them here (before his article appears in print, that is). He
      also tells me that John Kloppenborg is planning an article in reply to
      Goodacre (I think in _New Testament Studies_, but I may have misremembered),
      which may be a welcome sign of North American Scholarship taking the Farrer
      Hypothesis more seriously (although Kloppenborg addresses the Farrer-Goulder
      hypothesis briefly in _Excavating Q_, I didn't think he really gave it a
      fair hearing, although that may have been because he had only limited space
      in which to discuss the Synoptic Problem before moving on to his main
      topic).

      Best wishes,

      Eric
      ----------------------------------
      Eric Eve
      Harris Manchester College, Oxford






      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:34:50 +0100 Eric Eve ... I think that is basically the reason. Kloppenborg devoted about the same number of pages as Tuckett to the
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 17, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:34:50 +0100 Eric Eve
        <eric.eve@...> wrote:
        >(although Kloppenborg addresses the Farrer-Goulder
        >hypothesis briefly in _Excavating Q_, I didn't think he really gave it a
        >fair hearing, although that may have been because he had only limited space
        >in which to discuss the Synoptic Problem before moving on to his main
        >topic).

        I think that is basically the reason. Kloppenborg
        devoted about the same number of pages as Tuckett
        to the existence of Q. While Tuckett focused most
        of his attention on Goulder, Kloppenborg decided
        to address Boismard instead. The reason for this
        decision makes sense when you realize that a large
        part of the book is addressed to those who agree
        with the Q hypothesis but stop there, saying that
        it is merely a hypothesis and no more should be
        done about Q. Rather, Kloppenborg argued that if
        you accept Q, you have to recognize all of its
        implications. The discussion of Boismard's ideas
        of multiple hypothetical source documents helps
        sets the stage for Kloppenborg's thinking about
        the logic of hypothetical sources.

        Stephen Carlson

        --
        Stephen C. Carlson,
        mailto:scarlson@...
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... Paul has also been kind enough to provide me with a proof copy and I have already begun preparing a response. There is plenty I disagree with in Foster s
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 18, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          On 17 Sep 2002 at 9:34, Eric Eve wrote:

          > John, many thanks for your most interesting thoughts; I also
          > appreciated Goodacre's book. You and others may be interested to know
          > that a critique (from the standpoint of the 2DH) of Goodacre's work by
          > Paul Foster (under the title 'It is Possible to Dispense with Q?') is
          > due to appear in _Novum Testamentum_. Paul has very kindly given me a
          > proof copy of his article, which makes a number of interesting points,
          > but I shan't steal his thunder by discussing them here (before his
          > article appears in print, that is).

          Paul has also been kind enough to provide me with a proof copy and I
          have already begun preparing a response. There is plenty I disagree
          with in Foster's article, and I think he has misread me at several
          important points.

          > He also tells me that John
          > Kloppenborg is planning an article in reply to Goodacre (I think in
          > _New Testament Studies_, but I may have misremembered), which may be a
          > welcome sign of North American Scholarship taking the Farrer
          > Hypothesis more seriously.

          Kloppenborg has two responses to _Case Against Q_ forthcoming, one a
          review for _RBL_ and another a full-length article for _NTS_. In my
          opinion, both of Kloppenborg's pieces are models of fairness and I
          was delighted with the care he had taken to engage on the issue
          (though again I have begun preparing a response).

          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


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.