tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post7540659997376898023..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: The New Testament in Antiquity on the Synoptic Problem: Some Further IssuesMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-13068389359641208792011-03-21T20:37:19.658-04:002011-03-21T20:37:19.658-04:00Thanks, CJ. Yes, I think you are right, though it...Thanks, CJ. Yes, I think you are right, though it's odd that they don't put the arrow in both directions. The chapter in general is not very well thought-through.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-44819645625953142162011-03-20T17:33:52.131-04:002011-03-20T17:33:52.131-04:00Concerning the fourth point you mention, I still t...Concerning the fourth point you mention, I still think that the authors attempted to take a step-by-step approach to the SP. They present that diagram after concluding the viability of Markan Priority, and since they are at this stage still dealing with only the three synoptics, they present a diagram that just so happens to reflect the FT. The next step is their decision on the "incredibility" of Luke's use of Matt and then move on to introducing the Q source. <br /><br />It is interesting though that they pose the question of whether Luke knew Matthew or Matthew knew Luke which would require the arrow to go both ways between Lk and Matt on their diagram. But my guess would be that if they wanted to represent the FT with that second diagram they would have mentioned or labeled it. I think another telling piece in favor of this is they provide photos of all the "fathers", if you will, of the competing theories, but neglect to include one of Austin Farrer.CJ Schmidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10772534371044603411noreply@blogger.com