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

Re: [Synoptic-L] The Case Against Q

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... Please see my earlier response to Brian Trafford, and also note Stephen Carlson s response. I don t think my views are accurately reflected in the
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 18, 2002
      On 17 Sep 2002 at 20:41, Maluflen@... wrote:

      > I hope that Mark Goodacre will acknowledge the validity of this
      > criticism. I do think the case is quite parallel to dismissals of
      > Luke's knowledge of Matthew by proponents of the 2DH.

      Please see my earlier response to Brian Trafford, and also note
      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 ignores
      > 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
      > elite.

      I tried to take seriously William Farmer's characterisation of the
      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 is
      > 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.

      Let me draw your attention again to the nature of the quotation
      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@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.