|
I'm grateful to Richard Bauckham for permission to quote his response to the Matthew Conflator Hypothesis videos as follows:
"Brilliant videos! ... My only serious query is that you accept 'alternating primitivity' without question. On the usual 2DH account, Luke is more primitive far more often than Matthew is. Judgments about what is 'more primitive' are, of course, often debatable. I am inclined to question whether there is ever a compelling argument for Matthew's version being more primitive. Or if we do conclude that just occasionally he is, then it may only be a case of Matthew's occasional awareness of an oral tradition of the same material. I am really dubious whether the evidence requires anything significant enough to be called a 'common source' or 'common sources.' Matthew certainly has sources other than Mark and Luke and maybe just occasionally they overlapped with Luke, but that doesn't really have to mean that Luke knew the same source as one of Matthew's. ... The two scribal practices - scroll and codex - is an excellent idea. Of course, working with scrolls needn't be quite as impractical as you suggest - because one could use notebooks and/or assistants with different sources open in front of them. ... Anyway, your arguments are compelling." In my reply I made the following response wrt alternating primitivity: "Everything you say about alternating primitivity is true. In the next set of videos I'll show why, on one or two occasions at least, it looks as though Matthew has conflated Luke with Luke's own source."
3 Comments
Keefa
15/12/2017 01:27:41 am
I have recently surveyed the blog entitled The Logos Academic Blog. The topic for discussion was “Ehrman, Goodacre, and the $1,000 challenge over Q”. If time permits, can you suggest some good resources that would get me up to speed on the Synoptic problem and Q? I have already added the book entitled: The critical edition of Q : synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French translations of Q and Thomas / edited by James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, John S. Kloppenborg; managing editor, Milton C. Moreland. Is this enough information to familiarize with the issues or is more needed?
Alan Garrow
15/12/2017 02:03:50 pm
Hi Keefa, If you are seeking a way into the issues I would put *The Ciritical Edition of Q* to one side for the time being. A better starting point for understanding many of the issues might be John Kloppenborg, *Q: The Earliest Gospel* (WJK Press, 2008). Kloppenborg writes from the perspective of a supporter of the Two Document Hypothesis. Mark Goodacre, *The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze* (Continuum, 2004) provides a beautifully wirtten guide favouring Luke's use of Matthew - (but is is very expensive since going out of print). A more recent introduction is *The Synoptic Problem: Four Views* Porter and Dyer (eds) (Baker, 2016). As you'll see from elsewhere on my blog, however, I have some problems with the 'up-to-dateness' of this particular book. Evan Powell, creator the the $1,000 Challenge, has written a very clear and original treatment of various issues - he favours Matthew's use of Luke. This book, which is popular in style, is *The Myth of the Lost Gospel* (Symposium, 2006). Enjoy! 3/10/2020 02:56:17 pm
I have two questions. 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 SIIBS at the University of Sheffield. Archives
January 2021
Categories |
RSS Feed