Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 4:24 am

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 5:16 am Mark Goodacre and Robert MacEwen will debate 'Which Gospel Came Second?' on Jacob Berman's History Valley YouTube channel this Friday, October 28.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE5UOisT8AY

Goodacre, of course, will argue for the Farrer theory (the synoptic gospels were written in the order Mark-Matthew-Luke), while MacEwen will argue for the Wilke Hypothesis (AKA the Matthean posteriority hypothesis, that the synoptics were written in the order Mark-Luke-Matthew).

Both scholars accept the theory of Markan priority. I suspect there won't be a much discussion of Marcion (unless Berman sees questions on Marcion in the live chat and asks them about it).

Best,

Ken

The event will need to be rescheduled. No word yet on when that will be.

Best,

Ken

What is your next video on history valley ?
I liked the last ones you did on the synoptic problem.

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 4:36 am What is your next video on history valley ?
I liked the last ones you did on the synoptic problem.

Sinouhe,

I appreciate your interest. Nothing planned at the moment. Jacob and I have discussed a few potential debates.

Best,

Ken

Many are the uncritical scholars who believe in a first-century original Mk. Those must be ignored rigorously at any cost whatsoever to make any sort of progress.

schillingklaus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:48 am Many are the uncritical scholars who believe in a first-century original Mk. Those must be ignored rigorously at any cost whatsoever to make any sort of progress.

If schillingklaus shoots the first Markan scholar, do we have to blame ourselves? Others will then say it was foreseeable ...

Mark Goodacre's paper 'Why Not Matthew's Use of Luke?' has been posted online. It is, unfortunately, not open access, but some may have online access through institutional affiliations. I don't know if the book in which it is published is available yet.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... hGFjGlfpS0

This is Goodacre's SBL 2018 paper mentioned in the OP and to which Robert MacEwen responded (and I responded to MacEwen).

Best,

Ken

Mark Goodacre's paper 'Why Not Matthew's Use of Luke?' has been posted online ...

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... hGFjGlfpS0

This is Goodacre's SBL 2018 paper mentioned in the OP and to which Robert MacEwen responded (and [Ken] responded to MacEwen).

That could well be a false dichotomy (or a sort of false dichotomy) ie. the authors of each [of G.Matthew and G.Luke] could have known the other's product. And, wrt to "a sort of false dichotomy", there could have been a few (or more) stages of post product redactional activity.

To be fair, Goodacre appears to allude to that:

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 1:40 pm

Mark Goodacre's paper 'Why Not Matthew's Use of Luke?' has been posted online ...

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... hGFjGlfpS0

This is Goodacre's SBL 2018 paper mentioned in the OP and to which Robert MacEwen responded (and [Ken] responded to MacEwen).

... seeing Luke as a reading of Matthew rather than Matthew as a reading of Luke remains strong ...

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... hGFjGlfpS0

That could well be a false dichotomy (or a sort of false dichotomy) ie. the authors of each [of G.Matthew and G.Luke] could have known the other's product. And, wrt to "a sort of false dichotomy", there could have been a few (or more) stages of post product redactional activity.

It could be, yes. But I think you're not grasping the context of Goodacre's paper. He is responding to the rise of the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis (Mark=>Luke=>Matthew) an alternative to the Farrer theory (Mark=>Matthew=>Luke). Both are alternatives to the Two Document Hypothesis, which holds that Mark and Matthew independently used Mark and the (hypothetical) Q document.

The question he's addressing is: if we abandon belief in the hypothetical Q document and hold instead that there was a direct connection between Matthew and Luke, why should we think Luke used Matthew (the Farrer theory, which Goodacre advocates) rather than vice versa? Isn't the theory that Matthew used Luke just as likely (or likelier, as Alan Garrow, Ronald Huggins, and Robert MacEwen argue)?

Goodacre is arguing that, in fact, there are good reasons to favor Luke's use of Matthew over Matthew's use of Luke.

To be fair, Goodacre appears to allude to that:

(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 ...

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... hGFjGlfpS0

No, he's arguing that the evidence points to Luke's use of Matthew in all of the above cases.

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:09 pm
No, he's arguing that the evidence points to Luke's use of Matthew in all of the above cases.

Best,

Ken

Sure. To be fair to Mark G, and thorough, here are those points I split up above, in full and continuously:


I still think that, "the case for seeing Luke as a reading of Matthew rather than Matthew as a reading of Luke" is a false dichotomy - which I was not levelling at Mark G [per se] - I was just making a general point

And I should note Goodacre addresses that [general allegation] with

1. "Matthew’s redactional fingerprints repeatedly appear in material he shares with Luke"

and perhaps also with (b) "Luke often shows “fatigue” in his versions of double-tradition material"

It's Markan Prioritists like Robertj who spread threats of violence.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 7:39 am Mark Goodacre's paper 'Why Not Matthew's Use of Luke?' has been posted online. It is, unfortunately, not open access, but some may have online access through institutional affiliations. I don't know if the book in which it is published is available yet.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... hGFjGlfpS0

This is Goodacre's SBL 2018 paper mentioned in the OP and to which Robert MacEwen responded (and I responded to MacEwen).

Google books provides some pages from Goodacre's chapter (titled 'Why Not Matthew's Use of Luke?') in this edited volume:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Gospel+ ... 4&dpr=1.25