Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 12:23 pm This had not escaped me

Best,

Ken

I thought you were a Farrer guy so it wasn't for your benefit. Something I am curious about. This is the second time in a couple of weeks that I have heard a biblical scholar say that they are convinced that Luke is dependent on Antiques from Steve Mason. Why does Richard Pervo not referenced in these discussions? His "Dating Acts" is more thorough of an argument than Mason's is in my opinion. Mason's argument is only a single chapter where Pervo's argument is basically an entire book.

jasonrollins wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 1:47 pm

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 12:23 pm This had not escaped me

Best,

Ken

I thought you were a Farrer guy so it wasn't for your benefit. Something I am curious about. This is the second time in a couple of weeks that I have heard a biblical scholar say that they are convinced that Luke is dependent on Antiques from Steve Mason. Why does Richard Pervo not referenced in these discussions? His "Dating Acts" is more thorough of an argument than Mason's is in my opinion. Mason's argument is only a single chapter where Pervo's argument is basically an entire book.

First, because I think Mason's argument is earlier, more widely known, presented as an argument, and more easily digestible. Second, there may possibly be some reluctance to refer to Pervo's work with approval (for reasons outside of his scholarship). It is safer to refer to Mason who is a well-respected scholar of Josephus.

Best,

Ken

Pervo is a convicted sex offender.

Mason's specialty is Josephus. Pervo's was Acts. His conclusion is of considerable importance to his ideas about Acts, but that is not true for Mason, who really could have gone either way without much effect on his other work.

Pervo is a convicted sex offender.

I didn't know that. You know what Origen writes in Against Celsus about names. That's why I am so perfect I guess.

Does Kloppenborg think that not only Luke-Acts, but also Matthew postdates *Ev?

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 10:47 pm Does Kloppenborg think that not only Luke-Acts, but also Matthew postdates *Ev?

If he addressed the issue in the video, I didn't catch it. But he says that he does not think [Marcion's Evangelion] gives us as good a picture of Q as the International Q Project's reconstruction of Q from the material in Matthew and Luke [39:55].

I would take this to mean that he hasn't yet come to the conclusion that his acceptance of the Evangelion as prior to Luke requires him to rethink his views on the IQP's text of Q in any significant way and that the fact that he now thinks Luke's sources are Mark, Q, and the Evangelion does not mean he has rethought his previous opinion on Matthew (whom he thought/thinks had Mark and Q as sources).

And Jacob Berman has cautioned me that the way Kloppenborg states Vinzent's opinion may not be the way Vinzent himself would state it. Vinzent may not be speaking about the Evangelion being dependent on *canonical* Mark.

We shall have to wait and see what Vinzent himself has to say. It's always dangerous to try to get a scholar's opinion second-hand through a third party, though some are better than others at recapitulating other people's opinions.

Best,

Ken