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

creatio ex nihilo

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Mark M. wrote (SNIP) - ... Mark Goodacre commented on this (SNIP) - ... To me, the greatest weakness in Goulder s exposition of the Farrer Hypothesis is not
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 8, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark M. wrote (SNIP) -
      >> My criticism of Goulder's analysis of these two passages is that he
      >> is reluctant (or even unwilling) to consider other material that Luke
      >> might have relied on other than Mark, Matt, and the OT.
      >
      Mark Goodacre commented on this (SNIP) -
      >I could not agree more; and sadly it has detracted from the
      >plausibility of the case he makes on other occasions for Luke's use of
      >Matthew and Mark.
      >
      To me, the greatest weakness in Goulder's exposition of the Farrer
      Hypothesis is not how Goulder understands the use of Matthew and Mark by
      Luke, or the supposed use of Mark by Matthew. Far more difficult is
      Goulder's assumption that Matthew created the whole of the double
      tradition ex nihilo. What sort of genius must Matthew have been to
      fabricate such sublime teaching, usually regarded as the finest teaching
      of Jesus?

      I find it hard to accept that even with the help of the Old Testament
      and the Gospel of Mark, the gospel-writer Matthew dreamed up out of his
      own head the Sermon, the Lord's Prayer, the Lament over Jerusalem, the
      Parable of the Builders, the Estimate of John, the Parable of the
      Leaven, the Quarrelling Children in the Market-place and the Mission
      Speech, together with all the other material of the double tradition.

      The implausibility of Goulder's approach is not how he expounds
      documentary dependence by Luke on Mark and Matthew, or by Matthew on
      Mark, but rather how he understands the NON-dependence of Matthew on
      documentary source material for the double tradition.

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
      SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
      10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
      Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Mark M. wrote (SNIP) - ... Mark Goodacre commented on this (SNIP) - ... To me, the greatest weakness in Goulder s exposition of the Farrer Hypothesis is not
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 8, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark M. wrote (SNIP) -
        >> My criticism of Goulder's analysis of these two passages is that he
        >> is reluctant (or even unwilling) to consider other material that Luke
        >> might have relied on other than Mark, Matt, and the OT.
        >
        Mark Goodacre commented on this (SNIP) -
        >I could not agree more; and sadly it has detracted from the
        >plausibility of the case he makes on other occasions for Luke's use of
        >Matthew and Mark.
        >
        To me, the greatest weakness in Goulder's exposition of the Farrer
        Hypothesis is not how Goulder understands the use of Matthew and Mark by
        Luke, or the supposed use of Mark by Matthew. Far more difficult is
        Goulder's assumption that Matthew created the whole of the double
        tradition ex nihilo. What sort of genius must Matthew have been to
        fabricate such sublime teaching, usually regarded as the finest teaching
        of Jesus?

        I find it hard to accept that even with the help of the Old Testament
        and the Gospel of Mark, the gospel-writer Matthew dreamed up out of his
        own head the Sermon, the Lord's Prayer, the Lament over Jerusalem, the
        Parable of the Builders, the Estimate of John, the Parable of the
        Leaven, the Quarrelling Children in the Market-place and the Mission
        Speech, together with all the other material of the double tradition.

        The implausibility of Goulder's approach is not how he expounds
        documentary dependence by Luke on Mark and Matthew, or by Matthew on
        Mark, but rather how he understands the NON-dependence of Matthew on
        documentary source material for the double tradition.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
        SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
        10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
        Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.