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

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

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... Thank you very much for your positive and useful comments. ... Good point, though he s quoted on p. 6 and in a few footnotes round there. ... Thanks; I
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 18, 2002
      On 16 Sep 2002 at 13:32, John C. Poirier wrote:

      > I am also surprised that Goodacre's two new books have not been
      > discussed, esp. *The Case Against Q*. So let me make some opening
      > comments for a thread that should have already existed:

      Thank you very much for your positive and useful comments.
      > In my view, *The Case Against Q* represents a powerful broadside
      > against Q. The attention given to the rhetorical diminishment of Q
      > skepticism is important, and very well put (although I wonder why the
      > worst offender of all, James Robinson, is not cited in this
      > connection).

      Good point, though he's quoted on p. 6 and in a few footnotes round

      > The transformation of Q from a hypothetical document to
      > a "discovery" is also important, and well put. Goodacre refers to the
      > way in which North American Q scholarship often represents Griesbach
      > as the only serious competitor to the Two-Source theory, but he
      > perhaps should have dwelt on that point for a couple more pages: it is
      > an important point.

      Thanks; I can see that that might have been helpful. In terms of
      the book's strategy, I also attempted to deal with it by devoting
      Chapter 2 to a discussion of Marcan Priority, and bringing that also
      into the subtitle.

      > To my mind, Goodacre doesn't say nearly enough about Dungan's horribly
      > unfair (and inaccurate) *History of the Synoptic Problem*, but this
      > may be because he is more patient than I am.

      I'm afraid it's not. It is more to do with the fact that I have
      published a review of it elsewhere, _Scottish Journal of Theology_ 55
      (2002), pp. 373-7. I hope to add a reproduction of it to my homepage
      in due course. If anyone would like me to send a PDF in the
      meantime, I'd be happy to oblige.
      > I was intrigued by Goodacre's explanation of Crossan's derelict
      > reasoning on Thomas' use of the beatitudes: "the overwhelming problem
      > here is simply that Crossan is using conflicting English
      > translations." This caught my attention, because I noted a couple of
      > years ago (in *ZNW* 91 [2000] 180-91), that Crossan failed to consult
      > the LXX, when, in the same book (*Four Other Gospels*), he tries to
      > argue for *Papyrus Egerton*'s independence from the canonical gospels:
      > there, Crossan makes source-critical hay out of Mark 7:6-7's deletion
      > of part of Isaiah's wording, but he fails to note that these deleted
      > words do not appear in the Septuagint, which is what Mark is quoting!
      > Apparently, Crossan ignored all Greek texts throughout the writing of
      > *Four Other Gospels*.

      Thanks for drawing attention to this; in a way it is reassuring that
      my critique is on the right lines. I read and re-read that passage
      on the Beatitudes in _Four Other Gospels_ because I was concerned
      that I might be misreading Crossan's argument.
      > Goodacre is right to emphasize only the more problematic of the minor
      > agreements, but I wish he had addressed the argument of Davies and
      > Allison (in vol. 1 of their Matthew commentary) that the minor
      > agreements represent only the coincidental agreements of Matthew and
      > Luke, in their changes to Mark: given the total number of changes that
      > each gospel makes, we should expect as many minor agreements as we
      > find. I don't think their argument carries water, but it is certainly
      > striking, and needs to be addressed (although a real counterargument
      > may require a lot of detailed analysis).

      I agree that it needs dealing with, but I think it needs a proper,
      patient analysis to deal with it. My gut feeling is that there are
      far too many Minor Agreements for the independence / coincidence view
      to be plausible and I know that this is also the position of E. P.
      Sanders (see e.g. Sanders & Davies, _Studying the Synoptic Gospels_).
      But I am not happy just with gut feelings -- one needs a proper
      analysis. The nearest I've seen to such is Richard Vinson's PhD
      thesis to which I refer on pp. 152-4; see also the useful critique
      of Timothy Friedrichsen on the same.

      Thanks again for your kind words.

      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


      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.