Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8624
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre
Interesting debate hosted yesterday by Jacob Berman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmcn2t- ... toryValley
They end up agreeing on a lot, especially with McGrath talking about the subject being muddy. Right away McGrath starts by allowing that Luke used both Matthew and Q. At one point, McGrath says that Goodacre has persuaded a lot of people and that McGrath considers himself to be the underdog in the conversation.
I liked Goodacre's comment that he started by trying to understand Q so well that he tried to come up with fresh arguments for it. It really shows how he's been thinking about this for 25 years very deeply.
I'm not necessarily a huge fan of Goodacre's reference to Ockham's razor, as I think there can be positive arguments either way. I also think he has the ability to make a case that doesn't rely on it. I have retracted this statement, insofar as it was a comment on Goodacre's reference: viewtopic.php?p=157905#p157905
McGrath answers a question to say that he is not convinced that a version of Marcion's Gospel preceded Luke, but he does think later sources could have preserved earlier material. Goodacre said he is also not convinced that Marcion is prior. He says the evidence still favors (even if it sounds old-fashioned) that Marcion's Gospel is based on Luke. Of the two of them, McGrath sounds more willing to think that Marcion's Gospel has some material that is older.
I liked McGrath's reference to using computers to make use of manuscript evidence and the room for new hypotheses, e.g. referring to MacDonald's Two Shipwrecked Gospels.
Although billed as a debate, it ends up being more of a conversation in spite of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmcn2t- ... toryValley
They end up agreeing on a lot, especially with McGrath talking about the subject being muddy. Right away McGrath starts by allowing that Luke used both Matthew and Q. At one point, McGrath says that Goodacre has persuaded a lot of people and that McGrath considers himself to be the underdog in the conversation.
I liked Goodacre's comment that he started by trying to understand Q so well that he tried to come up with fresh arguments for it. It really shows how he's been thinking about this for 25 years very deeply.
I'm not necessarily a huge fan of Goodacre's reference to Ockham's razor, as I think there can be positive arguments either way. I also think he has the ability to make a case that doesn't rely on it. I have retracted this statement, insofar as it was a comment on Goodacre's reference: viewtopic.php?p=157905#p157905
McGrath answers a question to say that he is not convinced that a version of Marcion's Gospel preceded Luke, but he does think later sources could have preserved earlier material. Goodacre said he is also not convinced that Marcion is prior. He says the evidence still favors (even if it sounds old-fashioned) that Marcion's Gospel is based on Luke. Of the two of them, McGrath sounds more willing to think that Marcion's Gospel has some material that is older.
I liked McGrath's reference to using computers to make use of manuscript evidence and the room for new hypotheses, e.g. referring to MacDonald's Two Shipwrecked Gospels.
Although billed as a debate, it ends up being more of a conversation in spite of that.
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre
I like Jacob Berman's title
Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre
Goodacre is clearly sharper and more convincing than McGrath on this subject.
Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre
How of grace can Goodacre deny the priority of Marcion over Luke?
I can understand the McGrath's reluctance in accepting it (he is a mere apologist), but Goodacre?
This says much about the fear of the implications.
The Markan priority collapses with the Lukan priority.
I can understand the McGrath's reluctance in accepting it (he is a mere apologist), but Goodacre?
This says much about the fear of the implications.
The Markan priority collapses with the Lukan priority.
Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre
Is this in jest? It sounds like you are using OR to argue against OR—or at least Goodacre’s appeal to OR on the matter of Q.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 9:10 pm I'm not necessarily a huge fan of Goodacre's reference to Ockham's razor, as I think there can be positive arguments either way. I also think he has the ability to make a case that doesn't rely on it.
But I’ve been reading too much Kafka lately.
We ought to avoid the principle that counsels against unnecessary arguments. It isn’t necessary.
Arguments are better when they avoid, as being unnecessary, the principle that unnecessary arguments (explanations, solutions, etc) ought to be avoided.
It isn’t necessary to reject unnecessary explanations for being unnecessary. We can avoid them on other grounds, which will prove exactly how unnecessary they are.
The failure of any and all explanations that fail to explain—which are therefore not explanations at all—can be demonstrated apart from any general principle that all explanations (properly so called) must explain something.
The principle that unnecessary explanations are unsound is itself unnecessary, if not unsound. Unnecessary explanations are fine; they don’t, in principle, need to be excluded. Thus, we admit unnecessary explanations, and it is only the principle against unnecessary explanations that ought to be excluded. It ought to be excluded because it is unnecessary.
The fish is rotten? I would have thrown it away even if you had not told me ‘the fish is rotten.’ Thus your statement was unnecessary. I now discard the rotten fish, simply because it is rotten, and not because you said ‘the fish is rotten.’ We could have arrived at the correct result without there even being a question whether or not the fish was rotten. This question is altogether excluded.
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8624
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre
It is not in jest, but whatever.
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre
I really appreciate Goodacre's steadfastness. Marcion may have been a hyped topic in the 2010s, but that fad is waning. It's time to get back to serious work.
Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre
really? I am too much impressed by the arguments supporting Marcionite priority over Luke to consider Goodacre even only seriously, here.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 3:19 amI really appreciate Goodacre's steadfastness. Marcion may have been a hyped topic in the 2010s, but that fad is waning. It's time to get back to serious work.
Or better: Goodacre's reaction is 100% expected if the same Markan priority is seen as threatened by the fact that Marcion precedes Luke.
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre
The birth story, there is no doubt on that.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 4:13 amWhat do you think is the best argument or the two or three best arguments?
If Mark also had the birth story, then rejecting the Markan priority would be easy just as it is rejecting Luke and Matthew.