tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post127355737063406220..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Another Introduction to the Bible, Another Chance to Ignore the Farrer TheoryMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-14955001209464360242011-04-02T01:53:37.067-04:002011-04-02T01:53:37.067-04:00Good. I have long enjoyed and (as an ordinary C.of...Good. I have long enjoyed and (as an ordinary C.of E. parson) learnt much indeed from the work of Goulder and Goodacre. However, theirs does not complete the range of ways of looking at the Gospels. I am looking forward, for example, to reviews of Maurice Casey's recent really fascinating work on Jesus of Nazareth (based not least on his great knowledge of Aramaic), putting S.Mark back to c.AD 40, and as in part translation, not always accurate, from the Aramaic and close to the original events. Casey's earlier books on Jesus and on S.John's Gospel did not get much attention because of their high price but the new book is available in paperback.John Bunyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18115948807990414954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-51751868457761912722011-03-16T20:21:04.063-04:002011-03-16T20:21:04.063-04:00Yes, I think it is quite possible that there were ...Yes, I think it is quite possible that there were early Christian documents that were lost. It's just that the evidence, as I see it, for Luke copying from Matthew makes postulating that hypothetical document unnecessary.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-8937388193063477442011-03-16T03:42:44.570-04:002011-03-16T03:42:44.570-04:00Isn't it very plausible for a written document...Isn't it very plausible for a written document like Q to have existed?<br /><br />There is nothing implausible about early followers of Jesus writing down some of his teachings.<br /><br />Of course, early Christian texts are silent about the existence of Q. <br /><br />And if 'Luke' used 'Matthew' that would imply a relatively late date for 'Luke'.Maths Tutor Wirralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06043572594882614573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-56900481191204116792011-03-15T19:12:02.427-04:002011-03-15T19:12:02.427-04:00I think one of the reasons is that Marcan Priority...I think one of the reasons is that Marcan Priority is so persuasive and, for a long time, it was thought that Marcan Priority required Q in order for it to work. Another reason is the admirable, elegant simplicity of the Two-Source model, according to which all the triple tradition can be attributed to Mark and all the double tradition to Q. It's easy to understand and its easy to teach.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-23063871238276523542011-03-15T18:31:40.628-04:002011-03-15T18:31:40.628-04:00Why do so many New Testament scholars believe in t...Why do so many New Testament scholars believe in the historicity of something that possibly never existed?Maths Tutor Wirralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06043572594882614573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1564598965590449402011-03-12T16:15:16.888-05:002011-03-12T16:15:16.888-05:00Thanks, James. Good thoughts. They have inspired...Thanks, James. Good thoughts. They have inspired me to add some of my reflections too in a separate post.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-80277480385989100752011-03-12T12:32:41.980-05:002011-03-12T12:32:41.980-05:00It’s a scandal that such omissions and inaccuracie...It’s a scandal that such omissions and inaccuracies creep into standard textbooks and into most Intro courses in schools across America. It’s also a puzzle--why does Q continue to get unearned respect, why is Farrer dissed? Here are two guesses, two attempts to resolve my own sense of puzzlement. <br />1. Writers of introductory texts, teachers of introductory courses, aren’t much interested in the synoptic problem. They care about the words of the gospels, and don’t care about how it came about they’re there. The gospel tells us how to be saved, it tells us about the winsome fearsome Jesus, it tells us the parables to be puzzled over, it tells us of miracles, it tells us tales of agony and betrayal, --all very exciting stuff. Next to it, dry analysis of overlapping and differentiated stretches of text is just not much fun. <br /><br />So then it’s easy for laziness to set in, and the mindless force of tradition to reign. Nobody wants to rework their powerpoints, least of all at a dreary stretch like the synoptic problem. <br /><br />2. Literary and theological analysis is not only important and pleasant, it’s easy. Anybody with verbal facility can play the game pretty well. Whereas the synoptic problem is really hard. Starting from scratch, as one should, one is presented with parallel and divergent texts with major and minor disagreements that are hard to make any sense of at all. It’s as bad as logic questions on the LSAT--who would want to spend hours trying to set them up and get them straight? You’d have to be a little mad, as Goodacre evidently is. (And perhaps you’d have to have a mathematical turn of mind, as Goodacre does and Bauckham doesn’t.)<br /><br />So that’s my first cut--the synoptic problem falls towards the bottom of the list of topics one likes to think and talk about, and when one does, one finds it recalcitrant to a solution. So one just goes with the flow--where one finds almost everybody else.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07648009613244456111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-19915301353417857512011-03-12T12:24:15.622-05:002011-03-12T12:24:15.622-05:00Haha, thanks, Kevin and Peter.Haha, thanks, Kevin and Peter.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-2444129765194491772011-03-12T10:12:05.777-05:002011-03-12T10:12:05.777-05:00Mark, I think you should write your own intro to N...Mark, I think you should write your own intro to NT. I would be please to read it!Peter Malikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300775057549530008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-92144012784203130892011-03-11T23:29:59.744-05:002011-03-11T23:29:59.744-05:00What is un-herd remains unseen. Has it occurred t...What is un-herd remains unseen. Has it occurred to you that a large part of the appeal of "Q" is that one-letter name? Had it been called "Hypothetical Source" [Quelle], it would have gained little traction. But "Q" suggests, no doubt via "quintessence," some hidden physical constant or ratio that is the key of mysterious power that solves the problems of the ages. (I'm old enough to remember the Peter Sellers movie, "The Mouse That Roared," in which a miniscule European principality defeats the U.S. because it possesses the "Q-Bomb," which turns out to be a hoax.) To capture the high ground, you will have to rename the enemy, or, if that is impossible, rename the "Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre Hypothesis" as something sexier.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16903809956586132340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-25500964542635989402011-03-11T10:03:56.784-05:002011-03-11T10:03:56.784-05:00Cheer up, Mark. Think how much more disappointing ...Cheer up, Mark. Think how much more disappointing it is for me that Markan priority is so often taken as fact! Priority of a Semitic Matthew, not translated into Greek Matthew until after Mark and Luke come out, is unacceptable largely because it explains all those Markan "hard readings" that indicate the writer of Mark, in Rome, was flagrantly anti-Semitic.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-13668205856808179132011-03-11T09:00:46.278-05:002011-03-11T09:00:46.278-05:00Excellent. Thanks, Chris. (Thanks everyone else ...Excellent. Thanks, Chris. (Thanks everyone else for encouraging comments too!).Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-74521228298589288272011-03-11T08:57:49.194-05:002011-03-11T08:57:49.194-05:00Mark,
Ever since stumbling across your work a de...Mark, <br /><br />Ever since stumbling across your work a decade ago, I have tried to cover things like Farrer, fatigue, dispensing with Q, etc. as a means to have a thorough coverage. I have found that many of my friends do the same in their courses. I guess this "grass roots" movement has not penetrated to the realm of publication yet. <br /><br />Chris Skinner<br />http://pejeiesous.comChristopher W. Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11962045745879885164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-28240590166851924772011-03-11T07:47:57.493-05:002011-03-11T07:47:57.493-05:00Haha, right.Haha, right.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-32987374700733676982011-03-11T07:12:48.206-05:002011-03-11T07:12:48.206-05:00There's that Goodacre chap going on about Q ag...There's that Goodacre chap going on about Q again.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13754109895201401316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-90306944497642667092011-03-11T05:15:18.307-05:002011-03-11T05:15:18.307-05:00We for one think M. Goodacre's online material...We for one think M. Goodacre's online material to be one of the most useful and informative sources for all previous proposals and research. <br />More than just an immense boon to researchers and students querying the Synoptic Problem, this well-organized material is a must-read for any significant advance in this field. <br />I'm sure we may not agree on many SP details, but I found your work a constant source and inspiration for mine and my co-researchers here:<br /><a href="http://pericopedeadultera.com/SYNOP/" rel="nofollow">Synoptic Pr. and the PA</a><br /><br />Thanks for your efforts!<br /><br />mr.scrivenermr.scrivenerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10295661257329405324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-4110337878318540832011-03-11T00:13:09.106-05:002011-03-11T00:13:09.106-05:00Definitely keep it up. It was the noise you made a...Definitely keep it up. It was the noise you made about this issue that caught my attention and played a large part in my decision to attend Duke!CJ Schmidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10772534371044603411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-51579413972645352782011-03-10T22:43:00.189-05:002011-03-10T22:43:00.189-05:00I'm happy to report that where I went to Semin...I'm happy to report that where I went to Seminary, Fuller, the "Farrar-Goodacre hypothesis" was discussed in depth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-61658629607745579262011-03-10T22:42:43.672-05:002011-03-10T22:42:43.672-05:00Haha, thanks. Yes, surely I would be happy to blu...Haha, thanks. Yes, surely I would be happy to blurb the first decent NT Intro that actually discusses Farrer! Perhaps I should just write one myself.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-39297113204353852622011-03-10T22:31:13.860-05:002011-03-10T22:31:13.860-05:00MG's readers should note that many scholars re...MG's readers should note that many scholars refer to the theory as the Farrer-Goodacre or Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre theory.<br /><br />They should also note that Mark is surely primed to blurb any Intro to the NT/Bible that actually presents the theory!Jason B. Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00259815143346242351noreply@blogger.com