Re: [Synoptic-L] Goodacre's *Case Against Q*
- On 16 Sep 2002 at 13:32, John C. Poirier wrote:
> I am also surprised that Goodacre's two new books have not beenThank you very much for your positive and useful comments.
> discussed, esp. *The Case Against Q*. So let me make some opening
> comments for a thread that should have already existed:
>Good point, though he's quoted on p. 6 and in a few footnotes round
> 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
> The transformation of Q from a hypothetical document toThanks; I can see that that might have been helpful. In terms of
> 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.
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 horriblyI'm afraid it's not. It is more to do with the fact that I have
> unfair (and inaccurate) *History of the Synoptic Problem*, but this
> may be because he is more patient than I am.
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.
>Thanks for drawing attention to this; in a way it is reassuring that
> 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  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*.
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.
>I agree that it needs dealing with, but I think it needs a proper,
> 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).
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@...