Just received a new Book

[Archaea]

The Case against Q by Mark Goodacre.

It looks fascinating. Hope the information is quality.

[pelagius]

Have you seen his websites?

Case Against Q: http://ntgateway.com/Q/
Blog: http://www.ntgateway.com/weblog/

I read his blog sometimes.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The Case against Q by Mark Goodacre.

It looks fascinating. Hope the information is quality.

Arch, I haven't read the book, but from my reading of his other stuff I think I understand his basic claim. He is not suggesting a sayings source couldn't or probably didn't exist; he is arguing that we don't need to hypothesize a saying source because in his view Luke is dependent on both Matthew and Mark and where most scholars would say "Q" is the source for Luke, Goodacre would argue for Matthew.

Graphically, we might depict the traditional hypothesis of Markan Priority and the existence of Q as the following:



Goodacre still relies on Markan Priority, but rejects Q. Here is how I would graphical represent his idea:



Note, L refers to sources unique to Luke and M to sources unique to Matthew.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Arch, I haven't read the book, but from my reading of his other stuff I think I understand his basic claim. He is not suggesting a sayings source couldn't or probably didn't exist; he is arguing that we don't need to hypothesize a saying source because in his view Luke is dependent on both Matthew and Mark and where most scholars would say "Q" is the source for Luke, Goodacre would argue for Matthew.

Graphically, we might depict the traditional hypothesis of Markan Priority and the existence of Q as the following:



Goodacre still relies on Markan Priority, but rejects Q. He is how I would graphical represent his idea.



Note, L refers to sources unique to Luke and M to sources unique to Matthew.

My initial glancing at it suggests your surmise is correct. It is fascinating.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

My initial glancing at it suggests your surmise is correct. It is fascinating.

Per Indy this is all a waste of time. You should accept what the LDS Church puts in front of you at face value, just like Savonarola said about his Book. I bet Indy laments the First Amendment. He'd like a return to the old times, but with a new Church running things.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Per Indy this is all a waste of time. You should accept what the LDS Church puts in front of you at face value, just like Savonarola said about his Book. I bet Indy laments the First Amendment. He'd like a return to the old times, but with a new Church running things.

Listen up Indy, I'm going to defend you, it may never happen again.

I think, SU, that you are oversimplifying our pal Indy's approach. I think that what he believes, for himself, is that since he has already accepted these things on faith that there is no value in further examination. That is a legitimate approach and perfectly fine for him. What is not fine is failing to reconize that there are other legitimate approaches and that others may find value in the pursuit of further knowledge though he may not. This is something Rocky clearly does not get. I don't think Indy as as far out on that limb.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Listen up Indy, I'm going to defend you, it may never happen again.

I think, SU, that you are oversimplifying our pal Indy's approach. I think that what he believes, for himself, is that since he has already accepted these things on faith that there is no value in further examination. That is a legitimate approach and perfectly fine for him. What is not fine is failing to reconize that there are other legitimate approaches and that others may find value in the pursuit of further knowledge though he may not. This is something Rocky clearly does not get. I don't think Indy as as far out on that limb.

That's a very weak defense. I'd call it a mixed bag; damning with faint praise.

[Archaea]

I believe Seattle is oversimplifying Indy's position. Whether Indy disagrees that others may pursue knowledge than the method which you described is Indy's is the question I have.

I understand some may accept something on faith and never reexamine. If that method works for that person, great.

Does Indy find it a waste of time for others to constantly rething things? Rocky doesn't care and won't grasp it, but Indy may.

[SeattleUte]

But my essential point was not so much to attack Indy's approach to LDS faith here, but to put a mirror in front of him and show he's the same as those Medieval Catholics he condemns. He just doesn't have resort to the power of the state which would (inevitably) corrupt him absolutely, as it does anyone who has decided there's no point in looking any further than the Book.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

That's a very weak defense. I'd call it a mixed bag; damning with faint praise.

SU, were not really going to make a thread that started out about "Markan Priority without Q" into a probe about Indy's hermeneutical approach to the Scriptures? I would really rather talk about Q. I mean really don't you think that is a waste of my fine graphs?