Alan Garrow Didache |
the problem page
A few days ago I tried asking a related question in an AMA with Bart Ehrman: Robert Derrenbacker recently wrote: Bart's full answer can be found in the clip posted above. The original context is Reddit/AcademicBiblical/BartEhrman-MatthewAMA
The arresting thing about this answer is that (after explaining the Q Theory) Bart offers a reason why he thinks Luke did not use Matthew. What he doesn't go on to do is offer a comparable reason why Matthew could not have used Luke. This might be because the mechanics of Matthew's use of Luke are closely parallel to the mechanics of Matthew's use of Q (which Bart evidently doesn't find problematic). Without a specific reason why Matthew could not have used Luke, Bart's belief in Q has no rational basis. His concluding argument, "nobody thinks that", is not just bad logic it is also demonstrably untrue. See also: Swinging big and swinging blind: Bart's extra gamble [1] Robert Derrenbacker Jr., '"Unfinished" Mark "Replaced" by Matthew and Luke? Some Recent Studies and their Implications for the Synoptic Problem', in The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference, Olegs Andrejevs, Simon J Joseph, Edmondo Lupieri, Joseph Verheyden (eds) (BiTS 44, Peeters, 2023) page 193.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorAlan Garrow is Vicar of St Peter's Harrogate and a member of SCIBS at the University of Sheffield. Archives
August 2024
Categories |