Re: [Synoptic-L] The Case Against Q
- On 17 Sep 2002 at 20:41, Maluflen@... wrote:
> I hope that Mark Goodacre will acknowledge the validity of thisPlease see my earlier response to Brian Trafford, and also note
> criticism. I do think the case is quite parallel to dismissals of
> Luke's knowledge of Matthew by proponents of the 2DH.
Stephen Carlson's response. I don't think my views are accurately
reflected in the quotation from Davies and Allison, which I used to
begin that section on the relationship between omissions and
additions, i.e. it is a jumping off point and not the conclusion. It
was because of my own frustration with such casual dismissals that I
devoted an entire chapter to Markan Priority in the book.
> Mark ignoresI tried to take seriously William Farmer's characterisation of the
> here the very reasonable possibility that Mark did not intend to
> replace the older Gospels and that his particular authorial
> contribution was conceived in formal, rather than material terms:
> namely, his was to be a popular dramatization of an originally, and by
> then well known, literary tradition accessible only to a relative
Griesbach / Two Gospel Mark as an irenic figure and to engage with
that in the chapter. I have enjoyed reading your characterisation of
Mark on Synoptic-L but in this chapter I was primarily engaging with
published work on Mark from the Griesbach / Two Gospel perspective.
I look forward to seeing your views on Mark in print in due course,
with apologies if I have missed any up to this point.
> The other problem I have with this oft repeated argument isLet me draw your attention again to the nature of the quotation
> this: although it is reasonable enough in itself to use for
> establishing an initial hypothesis, subject to further testing and
> verification, it really does not pass that further verification in so
> many respects. <SNIP> It very often happens that an objective
> evaluation of the evidence in individual pericopes supports rather the
> view of a late Mark, dependent on earlier, more literary Gospels. It
> is at this point that one would need to reevaluate the macro-evidence
> argument of which Goodacre's version is cited above, and also the
> presuppositions of this argument -- which turn out to be without
> unassailable cogency, or even particular merit.
concerned. Brian Trafford was quoting an opening to a section in
which I quoted Davies and Allison, but it is important to note that
my views were laid out subsequent to that quotation. I tried as far
as possible in that section, and in the chapter as a whole, to think
through the logical consequences of postulating a Griesbach Mark.
The question I particularly wanted to ask was whether a plausible
picture of Mark the redactor emerges on the Griesbach / Two Gospel
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@...