Jtwarren said
Is Dr. Mark Goodacre a christian? I’m so lost on the Q source.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard Goodacre discuss his personal religious beliefs. What difference does it make to whether or not he thinks “Q’ existed as a document? (He does not.) This one of those scholarly arguments that is more heat than light. The material certainly exists. It seems less interesting to me whether it existed as a separate document than where the material originally came from. We have no idea though it seems quite primitive. Equally interesting to me is that Mark, our earliest gospel, doesn’t know it.
It’s been years since I read Goodacre, but I believe his thesis is Mark has priority, Mathew relied on Mark, and Luke relied on both, making a Q source unnecessary.
Yes I think that is correct. If Ehrman interviews Goodacre I hope they skip “Q” which is booooring and discuss Goodacres’s reasons for thinking Luke knew Matthew. I’m pretty sure Ehrman still thinks they wrote independently.
Goodacre’s paper on authorial fatigue was great and really compelling, right until he tried to show authorial fatigue in Luke copying Matthew. The examples he marshalled just didn’t seem nearly as clear as the cases one can find in Matthew copying Mark.
I haven’t read his book though, so maybe there is something more substantial there
Still, I have the impression that a significant number of NT scholars have come (following his arguments) to accept the Farrer hypothesis over the last decade or so.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)