The subscriber, 'Evan', began by writing: “The British scholar Alan Garrow has complied an extremely compelling argument that Q never existed. In seven short videos totalling 52 minutes of viewing time he pretty much proves beyond any doubt that Matthew used both Mark and Luke, and what we imagine as the “Q source” is actually Matthew copying and reorganising Lukan material directly. See these videos here: https://www.alangarrow.com/mch.html. It is virtually impossible to believe in the Q theory once you’ve seen this data. Bart, if you see any holes in his arguments I would be grateful to hear.” [I should interject at this point that ‘proving that Q never existed’ isn’t, strictly speaking, the precise implication of my thesis – but I understand what Evan means.] Ehrman responded: “I’m afraid I don’t know [Garrow] or his work. The problem is always that it is very hard for someone without advanced training in a field (whether neuro-science, astronomy, evolutionary biology, philosophy, of biblical studies!) to see the holes in an argument that an expert can see pretty quickly. So we’ll see if he convinces any scholars!” Undeterred, Evan comes back with a wager: “You are an expert. I will lay a wager that you cannot find any holes in Garrow’s argument, and that in fact you will be convinced by his resolution to the Synoptic Problem. If you are not convinced, document whatever holes you see on this page. If you are convinced, post a statement that you believe he may have a viable solution to the Problem. Either way, once your assessment is posted, I will donate $1000 to your blog as a thank you for the time you invested to view his presentation and formulate a response.” Ehrman can’t loose! If he finds holes in the thesis he gets $1000 for the charities he supports. If he doesn’t find holes in the thesis (and is prepared to say so) he still gets $1000 – and a solution to the Synoptic Problem into the bargain! Ehrman responds: “Ah, that’s tempting. How long are these videos?” What do you think Ehrman will do? To find out what actually happens visit this string of the Ehrman Blog and scroll to the end of the discussion ...
Another question you might be asking is: who is 'Evan' and why does he care so much about Garrow's thesis? I don't know the answer, but I suspect it must be Evan Powell, author of The Myth of the Lost Gospel in which he makes an excellent case for Matthew's use of Luke. I'm grateful to Evan for his book and for his wager! To make up your own mind about the videos visit: www.alangarrow.com/mch.html For further developments in the Challenge see this Blog's archive for Dec 2017, April 2018 and May 2018.
5 Comments
9/12/2017 06:10:10 pm
I have known about Garrow's MCH for some time, and he makes some good points. However, I note that on his blog Garrow indicates the possibility of aMatthew (author of Matthew) using an early version of Luke: "My preference at this stage, therefore, is to work with the broad notion that Matthew used something similar to canonical Luke - while accepting that there is always scope for greater complexity." My opinion (as explored on my web-site) is that aMatthew used an early version of Luke (e.g. beginning at Lk 3:1) in addition to Mark, and later aLuke used Matthew. I see this as preferable to suggesting a smaller version of Q, as there is significant evidence in Luke that there was an earlier, shorter, version. 10/12/2017 05:19:06 pm
If 'Evan' is Evan Powell, then a lot of information regarding his own synoptic hypothesis can be found at http://synoptic-problem.com/synoptic_problem_author_info.html. (If for any reason my own website link appears broken in Google please click on the 'Search Google for lin). 9/12/2017 06:40:48 pm
Matthew using Luke is half the story. The other half is Luke using Matthew. The data are irredeemably bidirectional. To propose a Luke > Matthew model is to make the same mistake Farrer and Goulder made, only in the opposite direction. The only other model, besides Q, that takes account of this situation is my Luke A/B/C model, for which see my paper "Acts/Luke" in the new journal Alpha, v1 (2017) 143-157. The bidirectionality is the hole. Can I have the $1,000? 9/12/2017 11:31:50 pm
I was convinced by your argument (except for your retention of a rump of the Q hypothesis) some time ago. Why don't I get $1000?
Alan Garrow
10/12/2017 12:52:29 pm
Because your endorsement is priceless (and I'm not setting the rules!) 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 |
RSS Feed