...with abstracts is online and searchable by keyword.
https://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/Congr ... etingId=33
For example, the abstract for
T.C. Schmidt, Yale University
The Testimonium Flavianum in Light of Jewish and Greco-Roman Reports about Jesus (30 min)
may look interesting, as a different view than usual here.
SBL Annual Meeting Program Book...
-
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
- Location: Denmark
Re: SBL Annual Meeting Program Book...
Some interesting stuff. Mark Goodacre has a paper against 'Matthean Posteriority', i.e. the theory that Matthew used gLuke (instead of the other way around, according to the Farrer Hypothesis).
Why not Matthew's use of Luke?
A recent resurgence in support for Matthean Posteriority (Alan Garrow; Rob Macewen) builds on the secure footing of Marcan Priority alongside growing skepticism about Q. Could it be that advocates of the Farrer Theory have the direction of dependence wrong, and that Matthew knew Luke? The case for Matthean Posteriority refreshes the discussion of the Synoptic Problem by providing a new and interesting challenge, but the case for Luke’s use of Matthew remains strong: (a) Matthew’s redactional fingerprints repeatedly appear in material he shares with Luke; (b) Luke often shows “fatigue” in his versions of double tradition material; (c) Luke betrays knowledge of Matthean literary structures; and (d) Matthew fails to include congenial Lucan details on politics, personnel, and geographical context.
Re: SBL Annual Meeting Program Book...
Is there any way to get a link to that paper? I would love to read it. Also, I read Alan Garrow's thesis but am unfamiliar with Rob Macewen and his arguments. Are there any links to this material?Stefan Kristensen wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 1:09 pm Some interesting stuff. Mark Goodacre has a paper against 'Matthean Posteriority', i.e. the theory that Matthew used gLuke (instead of the other way around, according to the Farrer Hypothesis).
Why not Matthew's use of Luke?
A recent resurgence in support for Matthean Posteriority (Alan Garrow; Rob Macewen) builds on the secure footing of Marcan Priority alongside growing skepticism about Q. Could it be that advocates of the Farrer Theory have the direction of dependence wrong, and that Matthew knew Luke? The case for Matthean Posteriority refreshes the discussion of the Synoptic Problem by providing a new and interesting challenge, but the case for Luke’s use of Matthew remains strong: (a) Matthew’s redactional fingerprints repeatedly appear in material he shares with Luke; (b) Luke often shows “fatigue” in his versions of double tradition material; (c) Luke betrays knowledge of Matthean literary structures; and (d) Matthew fails to include congenial Lucan details on politics, personnel, and geographical context.
Thank you
Λῆν
-
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
- Location: Denmark
Re: SBL Annual Meeting Program Book...
I don't think so, unfortunately. I don't think the papers are published. Try writing Mark Goodacre himself, he's a nice fellow, maybe you're lucky.Jax wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:59 pmIs there any way to get a link to that paper? I would love to read it. Also, I read Alan Garrow's thesis but am unfamiliar with Rob Macewen and his arguments. Are there any links to this material?Stefan Kristensen wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 1:09 pm Some interesting stuff. Mark Goodacre has a paper against 'Matthean Posteriority', i.e. the theory that Matthew used gLuke (instead of the other way around, according to the Farrer Hypothesis).
Why not Matthew's use of Luke?
A recent resurgence in support for Matthean Posteriority (Alan Garrow; Rob Macewen) builds on the secure footing of Marcan Priority alongside growing skepticism about Q. Could it be that advocates of the Farrer Theory have the direction of dependence wrong, and that Matthew knew Luke? The case for Matthean Posteriority refreshes the discussion of the Synoptic Problem by providing a new and interesting challenge, but the case for Luke’s use of Matthew remains strong: (a) Matthew’s redactional fingerprints repeatedly appear in material he shares with Luke; (b) Luke often shows “fatigue” in his versions of double tradition material; (c) Luke betrays knowledge of Matthean literary structures; and (d) Matthew fails to include congenial Lucan details on politics, personnel, and geographical context.
Thank you
Λῆν
Re: SBL Annual Meeting Program Book...
Here's a link to Robert MacEwen's book on Amazon (with preview feature)
shorturl.at/ekQ59
https://www.amazon.com/Matthean-Posteri ... dpSrc=srch
I think it's a good book, probably the best book on the subject, though it didn't by any means convince me of the thesis of Matthew's dependence on Luke. MacEwen does a good job of surveying the issue and tries to keep his descriptions of the data and his evaluation of how the data supports one theory or another separate. He doesn't resort to parodying the opposing case. It's a more even-handed approach than one often finds in work on the synoptic problem.
shorturl.at/ekQ59
https://www.amazon.com/Matthean-Posteri ... dpSrc=srch
I think it's a good book, probably the best book on the subject, though it didn't by any means convince me of the thesis of Matthew's dependence on Luke. MacEwen does a good job of surveying the issue and tries to keep his descriptions of the data and his evaluation of how the data supports one theory or another separate. He doesn't resort to parodying the opposing case. It's a more even-handed approach than one often finds in work on the synoptic problem.
Re: SBL Annual Meeting Program Book...
Thank you Ken.Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:43 pm Here's a link to Robert MacEwen's book on Amazon (with preview feature)
shorturl.at/ekQ59
https://www.amazon.com/Matthean-Posteri ... dpSrc=srch
I think it's a good book, probably the best book on the subject, though it didn't by any means convince me of the thesis of Matthew's dependence on Luke. MacEwen does a good job of surveying the issue and tries to keep his descriptions of the data and his evaluation of how the data supports one theory or another separate. He doesn't resort to parodying the opposing case. It's a more even-handed approach than one often finds in work on the synoptic problem.
-
- Posts: 2312
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am
Re: SBL Annual Meeting Program Book...
In case you haven't read it already, Mark Goodacre has already commented Alan Garrow's work:
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/garrows-flaw.html
and
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/fu ... arrow.html
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/garrows-flaw.html
and
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/fu ... arrow.html