Posted by: Nick Norelli | September 24, 2009

Back and Forth

First James and Mark and now James and Doug.  I’d side with Mark and Doug on each issue respectively.

B”H

Posted in Biblical Studies, Biblio/Theo-Blogs, Christology, Enjoyable Posts, New Testament

«
»

Responses

  1. I’m neither with either – well I’m actually a little bit both with James and Doug on the Jesus as God thing… :-)

    By: steph on September 24, 2009
    at 2:33 pm

  2. Steph: What’s your general opinion of Goodacre’s work on the Synoptic Problem?

    By: Nick Norelli on September 24, 2009
    at 2:35 pm

  3. I haven’t seen him confront issues of Aramaic, respond to earlier dating arguments on Mark, and I don’t agree with his general thesis that Luke used Matthew. And there is more focus on literary origins without enough consideration of historical plausibility, in my opinion. But I really like him as a person and we share common interests! :-)

    By: steph on September 24, 2009
    at 2:55 pm

  4. Mark Goodacre: He’s got a nice sense of humor. ;-)

    By: Chuck Grantham on September 24, 2009
    at 4:00 pm

  5. Steph,

    Mark G. responded to “earlier dating arguments on Mark” at the SBL last year. His paper is still available for reading on Jeff Peterson’s website.

    By: John C. Poirier on September 24, 2009
    at 4:11 pm

  6. Thank you John … I’ve only read responses on his blog where he doesn’t properly confront the actual arguments and effectively hasn’t answered them. I am not sure if I have read a paper. Have you got a link? I didn’t know Jeff had a website and I can’t find it.

    By: steph on September 24, 2009
    at 4:41 pm

  7. Steph: Thanks for the honest opinion. I’ve not read his work past the stuff on his blog yet. There’s a book that he edited and another that he wrote that I want to pick up eventually.

    Chuck: Doesn’t he though? ;-)

    By: Nick Norelli on September 24, 2009
    at 5:08 pm

  8. Nick: Or like the commercial on BBC DVDs suggest, many Americans just find the accent hilarious.

    By: Chuck Grantham on September 24, 2009
    at 6:40 pm

  9. Chuck: Yeah, there’s always that too!

    By: Nick Norelli on September 24, 2009
    at 8:17 pm

  10. As well as Questioning Q and The Case Against Q, you might want to read his published doctoral thesis, Goulder and the Gospels. That was very helpful. I disagree with him also over the concept of occam’s razor but probably my biggest issue is over the historical Jesus. But then time will tell… :-)

    By: steph on September 24, 2009
    at 8:52 pm

  11. Steph: Thanks, I’ll keep his thesis in mind. It’s probably going to be a little while before I really sink my teeth into the Synoptic Problem. I have a couple of books on my shelf now that still need to get read.

    By: Nick Norelli on September 24, 2009
    at 10:21 pm

  12. Mark did respond to the earlier dating of Mark on his blog but did not counter the arguments substantially and unfortunately did not respond to the arguments subsequently put to him on his blog. James responded on his blog but Mark unfortunately still did not interact with those arguments at the SBL – to do with the assumptions in Mark that Matt and Luke make explicit, their changes to Markan intention of the Law and precise issues around Mark 7.

    By: steph on September 25, 2009
    at 2:14 pm

  13. The website is http://austingrad.edu/sbl.html

    By: John C. Poirier on September 25, 2009
    at 2:18 pm

  14. John – yes I found it thank you – but this is what he didn’t respond to:
    http://earliestchristianhistory.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html

    back and forth…! :-)

    By: steph on September 25, 2009
    at 2:39 pm

  15. Also Mark tends to replace historical investigation with literary criticism, he follows Kloppenborg who says that Jesus couldn’t have predicted the destruction so ‘precisely’ in Mark – but both ignore the fact that Jesus in Mark actually got it WRONG!! The temple was burned without stones left standing. Jesus was quite capable historically of predicting that. And while Goodacre assumes the fair generalisation that historical traditions can be written up later he doesn’t confront the specific arguments put by James regarding assumptions in Jewish law not known by later audiences and changed accordingly by Matthew and Luke.

    and just one more thing, James sums up his response to Mark’s SBL paper:
    ”On the whole then, while being obviously grateful to Mark G for engaging with my arguments, I don’t think he has engaged with the heart of my arguments in Date of Mark, such as the details of the legal debates and the qualifications made by Matt and Luke and why these qualifications were made. So there you go.”

    By: steph on September 26, 2009
    at 9:11 am


Leave a response






Your response:

Categories