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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Editorial Fatigue in Matthew's double tradition

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    ... (2003 no 4), Paul Foster refutes Goodacre s recent work... [much snipped]. Elsewhere in the article, Foster made some good (and stronger) points regarding
    Message 1 of 8 , May 13, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      On May 12, Joseph Weaks posted:

      >>In a Novum Testamentum article, 'Is it Possible to Dispense with Q?'
      (2003 no 4), Paul Foster refutes Goodacre's recent work...
      [much snipped].
      Elsewhere in the article, Foster made some good (and stronger) points
      regarding Goodacre's work that I hope to see Mark respond to at some
      point.<<

      Joseph,

      I'm a little confused by the word "refutes" in your first sentence. It
      would seem to suggest that you were convinced by Foster's arguments against
      Mark Goodacre, which isn't the impression I gathered from the rest of what
      you wrote. Mark has already given his response on the issue of editorial
      fatigue and cited some other places where he and Stephen Carlson had
      responded to Foster. I've been over Foster's paper fairly thoroughly and
      did not find it particularly well thought out. Parenthetically, I think John
      Kloppenborg does a much better job of responding to Goodacre in "On
      Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew," NTS 49
      (2003) 210-236, though I do not find his criticisms unanswerable. I was
      particularly unimpressed by Foster's representation of the way The Gospel of
      Thomas affects Farrer's and Goodacre's arguments about the genre of Q, by
      his appeal to the authority of Kloppenborg on Q's genre and Downing on
      ancient compositional procedures (I find JSKV's arguments questionable and
      Downing's dead wrong), and by the way he takes the mere existence of
      alternative possibilies on the Minor Agreements and the relative order in
      which Luke got hold of his sources as refuting Goodacre's arguments as to
      what is actually probable. Could you spell out a few of what you thought
      were Foster's good (and stronger) points?

      Best Wishes,

      Ken

      kaolson@...



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Joseph Weaks
      ... Ken, I may have been holding the keyboard at a strange angle, but I think you simply were unable to read my handwriting. Yes, of course I was quite clear
      Message 2 of 8 , May 13, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On May 13, 2004, at 10:31 AM, Ken Olson wrote:
        > On May 12, Joseph Weaks posted:
        >>> In a Novum Testamentum article, 'Is it Possible to Dispense with Q?'
        >> (2003 no 4), Paul Foster re[ ]ut[ ]s Goodacre's recent work...
        >> [much snipped].
        >> Elsewhere in the article, Foster made some good (and stronger) points
        >> regarding Goodacre's work that I hope to see Mark respond to at some
        >> point.<<
        >
        > Joseph,
        > I'm a little confused by the word "refutes" in your first sentence. It
        > would seem to suggest that you were convinced by Foster's arguments
        > against
        > Mark Goodacre, which isn't the impression I gathered from the rest of
        > what
        > you wrote.

        Ken,
        I may have been holding the keyboard at a strange angle, but I think
        you simply were unable to read my handwriting. Yes, of course I was
        quite clear from the email that I was unconvinced by Foster's argument.
        I found nothing in his paper that was unanswerable, by even me. Perhaps
        I was just being kind. The only reason I brought up the article was
        because it was brought to my attention in private after my initial
        post. I would be happy to raise some of Foster's stronger points, under
        a different topic heading and on another day, as I have just arrived
        home from day one of my doctoral qualifying exams and my brain is a bit
        mushy at the moment.

        Speaking of which, GUESS what question I got... something like:

        "While the Two-Source Hypothesis enjoys a consensus amount NT scholars,
        is it possible that we find ourselves in a state of reevaluation? Give
        the evidence in support of the the 2SH with examples and then describe
        the alternatives which present the best challenge (or do I mean
        refutation ;) Finally, in your evaluation, what are your assessments
        for the future in the field of the synoptic problem?"

        Well, it was worded betters... as I said... mush. However I was
        delighted to see the question among the others. In the closing section,
        Mark's name came up more than once, as did he good colleague Dr.
        Parker. Heck, if I could've remembered the page number, I probably
        should've put a portion in quotes. hehe

        Now, I hope I did equally as well in the question where I compared the
        literary genres of Lucian's Hermas and Shepherd of Demonax.

        Cheers,
        Joe
        **************************************************************
        Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
        Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
        Leander Keck Fellow of NT Studies, Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
        j.weaks@...
        **************************************************************


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        ... I hope you will display remarkable prescience by announcing that the Two Gospel Hypothesis will be the preferred Synoptic theory of the future. Leonard
        Message 3 of 8 , May 14, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 5/13/2004 9:44:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, j.weaks@... writes:

          > Finally, in your evaluation, what are your assessments
          > for the future in the field of the synoptic problem?"

          I hope you will display remarkable prescience by announcing that the Two Gospel Hypothesis will be the preferred Synoptic theory of the future.

          Leonard Maluf
          Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
          Weston, MA

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Tim Reynolds
          ... Some list members are going to be embarrassed at the eventual recognition that the salient issue is not transmission direction but transmission mode. For
          Message 4 of 8 , May 14, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            on 5/14/04 5:53 AM, Maluflen@... at Maluflen@... wrote:

            > In a message dated 5/13/2004 9:44:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, j.weaks@...
            > writes:
            >
            >> Finally, in your evaluation, what are your assessments
            >> for the future in the field of the synoptic problem?"
            >
            > I hope you will display remarkable prescience by announcing that the Two
            > Gospel Hypothesis will be the preferred Synoptic theory of the future.
            >
            > Leonard Maluf
            > Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
            > Weston, MA
            >
            > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...



            Some list members are going to be embarrassed at the eventual recognition
            that the salient issue is not transmission direction but transmission mode.
            For newbies, v. "auditory piracy", Archives.

            Tim Reynolds
            Long Beach CA


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Joseph Weaks
            ... You must not be familiar with D. C. Parker s work, in order to see where I was heading. The TGH received two sentences in my answer. But you should ve
            Message 5 of 8 , May 14, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              On May 14, 2004, at 7:53 AM, Maluflen@... wrote:
              > In a message dated 5/13/2004 9:44:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
              > j.weaks@... writes:
              >> Finally, in your evaluation, what are your assessments
              >> for the future in the field of the synoptic problem?"
              >
              > I hope you will display remarkable prescience by announcing that the
              > Two Gospel Hypothesis will be the preferred Synoptic theory of the
              > future.

              You must not be familiar with D. C. Parker's work, in order to see
              where I was heading. The TGH received two sentences in my answer.

              But you should've heard my question on Job today... great God almighty
              I should've just walked away and cut my losses.

              Cheers,
              Joe


              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.