tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post109465180244290291..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Carlson on Kloppenborg on GoodacreMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1107196554000143962005-01-31T13:35:00.000-05:002005-01-31T13:35:00.000-05:00On the surface, Goodacre's conclusion seems valid,...On the surface, Goodacre's conclusion seems valid, that:<br /><br />"This is where I think that Occam's Razor genuinely has a role to play in Synoptic studies. Given that a good case can be made for Luke's use of Matthew, and given that entities should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary, then the Farrer theory should be preferred to the Two-Source Theory."<br /><br />However, the Farrer theory actually has two major unknown sources: the source for Mark and the source for Matthew's "Q" verses. There's a lot of material in Matthew not in Mark, which its writer had to get from somewhere.<br /><br />Similarly, the two-source theory has two unknown sources (the source for Mark, and Q). So where does Occam's razor enter in?<br /><br /> Jim Deardorff<br /> deardorj@proaxis.comJim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.com