tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post2907265364902820238..comments2024-01-21T02:41:00.325-05:00Comments on NT Pod: NT Pod Extended Episode 3: The Synoptic Problem 3Mark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-6119503683265342752014-09-18T18:51:48.397-04:002014-09-18T18:51:48.397-04:00**as****as**Matt Monaghanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06891865588639720443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-48966119196220020442014-09-18T18:50:56.927-04:002014-09-18T18:50:56.927-04:00The name change is only common between these two a...The name change is only common between these two and further the oral tradition reads a primary.Matt Monaghanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06891865588639720443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-11540061860634942482014-09-18T18:22:48.519-04:002014-09-18T18:22:48.519-04:00I know John is not a synoptic. Nevertheless, conce...I know John is not a synoptic. Nevertheless, concerning the renaming of Simon as Peter/Cephas, what do we then call the parallel between Matthew 16:13-20 and John 1:40-42 if not a 'synoptic problem?' Matt Monaghanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06891865588639720443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-38433012767562040322013-03-01T11:49:32.824-05:002013-03-01T11:49:32.824-05:00I got an idea concernig this Matthean "poor i...I got an idea concernig this Matthean "poor in spirit".<br />Maybe Matthew added "in spirit" because he opposed to Ebionites and he didn't want this passage sounded like pro-ebionite...<br />And Luke didn't care about it, and took original version, just "poor"?anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00129911299926401600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-2472984980760153552012-04-07T14:12:15.833-04:002012-04-07T14:12:15.833-04:00Many thanks for your kind words.Many thanks for your kind words.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-66948903515750048432012-04-07T14:07:54.652-04:002012-04-07T14:07:54.652-04:00Thank you for these excellent extended episodes. H...Thank you for these excellent extended episodes. Hearing the lectures have been a nice repetition after reading <i>The Case Against Q</i>.<br /><br />You are a very engaging and entertaining speaker.<br /><br />I'm a new reader/listener after Richard Carrier recommended your book as presenting the best evidence <i>for Q</i>.Jens Knudsen (Sili)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14078875730565068352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-18330956090772090592011-12-24T05:06:37.102-05:002011-12-24T05:06:37.102-05:00Thanks. I do intend to do extended eps. again in ...Thanks. I do intend to do extended eps. again in the future but it depends on my getting decent recordings of classes, and that's not always straightforward.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-10824359926497744672011-12-23T18:46:13.914-05:002011-12-23T18:46:13.914-05:00I am new to this blog and have thoroughly enjoyed ...I am new to this blog and have thoroughly enjoyed listening to your podcast--particularly these extended episodes! Thank you for making these studies available to the general public--I'd love to see more of these full classes on your blog over time.Mangihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14973502765190349012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-83963770952059174902010-08-26T19:27:15.783-04:002010-08-26T19:27:15.783-04:00Thanks, EK. Yes, absolutely. And just what Luke f...Thanks, EK. Yes, absolutely. And just what Luke focuses on in 4.16.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-37382020820418246592010-08-26T14:57:04.854-04:002010-08-26T14:57:04.854-04:00I've just listened again to these episodes. T...I've just listened again to these episodes. Thanks so much for them.<br /><br />It occurred to me in your discussion of why Luke might change Matthews account of "poor in spirit" to "poor" might be on a theological basis. If Luke saw Jesus' comments here reflecting the tone of Isaiah 61:1 (commissioned to bring good news to the poor) he might very well think that "poor" was a better representation of what Jesus had said and what his commission was.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03024854279361685335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-50787397932543093612010-03-16T17:24:50.384-04:002010-03-16T17:24:50.384-04:00Thanks for the interesting question. I have sketc...Thanks for the interesting question. I have sketched an answer here:<br /><br />http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-not-matthews-use-of-luke.htmlMark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-23437405367600769462010-03-16T16:50:13.863-04:002010-03-16T16:50:13.863-04:00Thank you for your helpful insights. I have one q...Thank you for your helpful insights. I have one question I did not hear addressed: why assume that Matthew predates Luke? Could it be the Matthew used Luke? I assume you have reasons for this assumption, but I didn't hear them addressed in your lecture. Thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-81144757661037589312010-03-06T13:42:00.553-05:002010-03-06T13:42:00.553-05:00Thanks, Jeff. Recordings are available for a lot ...Thanks, Jeff. Recordings are available for a lot of my classes, but there is a lot of extraneous material (discussion of mid-term assignments etc.). It doesn't take too long to edit them, though, so I will release more in the future, as time allows. Interesting thought about the syllabus. "NT Pod Oxford accent"?! Actually, I'm from the East Midlands.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-26449502108867818752010-03-06T12:00:02.819-05:002010-03-06T12:00:02.819-05:00Here's another request for extended episodes! ...Here's another request for extended episodes! I would love to hear the entire class edited or no!<br /><br />It would also be interesting to see your syllabus to aid self-study, not that I want to deny Duke its proper tuition! Is that be asking too much? :D<br /><br />Lastly, your presentation is more casual in the extended sets. You slip from your NTPod Oxford accent into your more natural regional accent. Worcestershire, perhaps? Not that the regular NTPods aren't, but the classes make for quite enjoyable listening. Thanks!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15394109064742975177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-71016797293707964532010-03-02T12:27:21.609-05:002010-03-02T12:27:21.609-05:00Thanks, Bob. I hope to have some more in the futu...Thanks, Bob. I hope to have some more in the future.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-58345027078030564642010-02-24T15:47:42.610-05:002010-02-24T15:47:42.610-05:00I loved the 3 lectures. Thanks.I loved the 3 lectures. Thanks.robertmclaurinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17681547867920017591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-75094600307772722332010-02-19T09:40:23.948-05:002010-02-19T09:40:23.948-05:00Thanks very much. Delighted to send your three mo...Thanks very much. Delighted to send your three month old to sleep.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-12616090332007672612010-02-19T09:28:41.538-05:002010-02-19T09:28:41.538-05:00Hear hear. The extended episodes are great. I even...Hear hear. The extended episodes are great. I even got my wife to listen to one. My 3 month old, however, fell asleep. That's a good thing, though. :)Alyoshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14623178608972180110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-42753858635460329802010-02-14T16:05:26.951-05:002010-02-14T16:05:26.951-05:00Thanks, John. I have had so much good feedback on...Thanks, John. I have had so much good feedback on the extended episodes that I am inclined to do more. The extended episodes do take a bit longer to edit, but one thing that occurs to me is that I could release them over a longer period of time. I don't think I'd be able to keep up with editing them and releasing them as I walk through the course.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-10845782693637780942010-02-14T09:57:04.768-05:002010-02-14T09:57:04.768-05:00Finding these three 50 minute programmes on the Sy...Finding these three 50 minute programmes on the Synoptic Problem really useful and very well structured. Just wondered whether you were planning to do something similar for other lectures in your undergraduate course - you mention two or three lectures on Mark's Gospel in one of these - something on the line of Dale Martin's excellent 24 part lecture series from from Yale?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13329823875347540020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-69468090126243809352010-02-13T22:06:55.243-05:002010-02-13T22:06:55.243-05:00Thanks, James. It looks like I misread your first...Thanks, James. It looks like I misread your first comment!Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-66155905815387956652010-02-13T21:59:20.146-05:002010-02-13T21:59:20.146-05:00I want to offer two burden-of-proof arguments agai...I want to offer two burden-of-proof arguments against Q.<br />1, As remarked by Goodacre in his lecture, Occam’s Razor applies to the Q hypothesis. Entities are multiplied, one may fairly presume needlessly. The most formidable of proponents of Q, Klopppenborg, complains that the priority of Mark is no less hypothetical than is the existence of Q. But the existence of Mark (as a document) is not in dispute. And as a text its existence is no more hypothetical than is the text of the Iliad or Oedipus Rex or Tacitus’ Annals. It took no ingenuity or application of the power of reason and inference to discover the existence of Mark, whereas Q was conjured entirely by inference, ingenuity and reason. Mark has been extant as a complete document since the fourth century. The notion that Q existed sometime in the first century was the product of Schleiermacher’s interpretation of Papias’ reference to Matthew’s compilation of the “logia of the Lord.”<br /><br />2. As Kloppenborg handsomely remarks, “The case for Q rests on the implausibility of Luke’s direct use of Matthew” [or, as is concededly implausible and seldom held, of Matthew’s direct use of Luke] That is to say, the case rests on the contention that a superbly skilled writer and masterly story teller should be supposed unable or disinclined to rework the materials presented to him by Matthew. It seems implausible to suppose that Luke was incapable of such redaction, so it must be supposed that he was disinclined. It’s not disputed, however, that he did rework Mark. The supposition is then, that in recounting the sayings--parables, teachings--of Jesus, Luke could only have shied away from revising what he found in Matthew. But why would a strong-minded, highly creative, and immensely gifted writer have done so? What present-day reader of Luke would dare presume that he was not eager and able to stamp what he read of Matthew with his own impress? Not to say here and now that he was not, but to say that the burden of proof lies on those who maintain that he was not.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02594317489026507409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-63365839259463643682010-02-13T14:58:37.034-05:002010-02-13T14:58:37.034-05:00I didn't make myself clear. I quite agree you ...I didn't make myself clear. I quite agree you were more than fair, and only meant to suggest that I doubt if those who adhere to the Q hypothesis can answer your arguments. But I'd like to see them try, because frankly I think that some very able and prominent scholars have skimped this part of the their courses and texts and relied too much on what they were taught before your work. They should listen hard to you and see if they can respond adequately. I believe that if they give your arguments their due, they will have to revise their lectures and their texts.<br /><br />I am refraining from naming names--I have two or three in mind--but I'm sure they can be guessed. One is a Midwesterner and two are Southerners, one of whom resides just ....<br /><br />I think the persistence and prevalence of the Q hypothesis is an intellectual scandal, and quite share the sense of astonishment and indignation that your lecture communicated.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02594317489026507409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-89436016654857125742010-02-13T11:20:03.097-05:002010-02-13T11:20:03.097-05:00Thanks for your comments, James. I don't thin...Thanks for your comments, James. I don't think that I was unfair in that class and I am sorry to hear that you think so. Of course here I am summarizing arguments that I have made in other places more fully, but there is certainly no intention to distort or to be unfair in the summarizing.<br /><br />Thanks for the interesting comments, divusjulius.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8882760792451007849.post-50632471386365316702010-02-13T10:33:47.845-05:002010-02-13T10:33:47.845-05:00(I have to add that when I refer to sondergut, I d...(I have to add that when I refer to <em>sondergut</em>, I don't mean the traditional definition of the term.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com