Rick Sumner

Do you really want to start making those comparisons Earl? Really? Because I bet I can take the analogy a lot farther than you can. I'll even qualify it with "reminds me of" if you'd like.

It doesn't have validity, it's a thinly veiled insult, which I doubt fooled even your supporters into thinking it was anything more than that.

Actually, I presented "as one example" (and noted that that would be without getting into other examples, such as those noted by Goulder). The problem of Lukan familiarity with Matthean redactive techniques was also mentioned, I was, as I stated, just giving the most obvious example.

But, of course, if you just pick a handful of my words, and then rephrase them, then sure, it was fair.

Yes it is. See above. And maybe re-read that post again.

It's interesting to me that when you're against the majority view you're Galileo, and only wish the evil hegemony would let you out of your tower. But when you're with it (though the majority here is rapidly dropping), it's because it's "fashionably radical," and your opponents are likened to Creationism.

If you want to have a more serious discussion, let me know, if you just want to keep trying to preach to the converted--because you won't convince anyone else with this sort of rhetoric--I can't be bothered anymore. Perhaps the Darwin analogy might work after all, because while your theory might have some merit, your argumentation is horrible. You need to find a Thomas Huxley.

dog-on

Why is it not possible that Luke, in this case, used both Mark's and Matthew's versions, keeping them seperate in his own text?

Mark 6 = Luke 9
Matt 10 = Luke 10

I just don't see the problem...

spin

Because you are not looking closely enough at what is said in each. Mt is basically a combination of the material in Mk 6 and Lk 10 with typical Matthean license.


spin

dog-on

I understand. What I do not understand is why is it not equally valid to look at it as Lk reducing Mt?

spin

Perhaps you can find some evidence of it having been done elsewhere, so that you don't just propose an ad hoc solution.


spin

dog-on

Doing something once is incredible?

Maybe Mark 6 is a not original to Mark. Jesus sends his apostles out with magical abilities, but just a few verses later they seem to have completely forgotten about it...

Or, Luke needed to simply repeat the story in order to support second century claims for apostolic authority over the various communities.

Solo

Mark Goodacre specifically answers the charge of Luke's 'scattering' of the Q material as presented in Matthew. In reality, there does not seem to be any reason why Luke could not re-compose or re-arrange his Mk-Mt source materials.

What I find surprising is that even iconoclasts such as Earl fall for a theory which views the synoptics essentially as products of fixed textual transmission. The consternation over Farrer's theory in the conservative circles was mostly provoked by his unabashed conviction that Matthew was pulling some of his material not out of some Q-script but straight from oral sources using a great deal of creative license. In the same vein it is possible to view the dispatch of the seventy or the parable of the prodigal son as essentially Lukan compositions.

Jiri

spin

My reading of this piece from Goodacre says that he spoke generally about the issue and did not contemplate the actual process whatsoever.

In this computer age when everyone can use multiple windows and cut and paste between them it wouldn't be hard, I guess, but to propose it in an age when people didn't even use desks for writing, you have to be out of your little head.

There are three common processes I'd postulate for the augmentation of texts: 1) copying (or perhaps dictation) from another source of material to be included; 2) inclusion of marginal materials and 3) interpolation of new material from the scribe. In each case we are dealing with at most two texts.

How does the manipulation of a third text (eg Matthew) at the phrase level (not a pericope level) come into the process? You need the text you are working on, the text you are generally copying from to compare with the third text to know what to include from the third text.

This Luke copying from Matthew is merely a means to simplify the process of construction of the gospels.

Why would our Lucan author have ever considered a second mission if he didn't have two separate sources for a mission? Did he wake up one morning and say, "I know what we need in this gospel, a second mission!"? Or did he have two sources and think "two separate missions"?


spin

spin

Proposing something unprecedented is simply ad hoc. It doesn't make it impossible, just without any support whatsoever.


spin

Solo

Sure, you would see me proposing that ...

You are a charming man, spin, we all know that. However, I was merely pointing to some resources to people who might be thrown by your affected innocence of the Farrer-Goodacre-Goulder "no-Q" ideas and points of argument.

Jiri