Botching Bostock — Analogical Thoughts

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, ruled in a 6-3 decision that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court’s opinion was written by Justice Gorsuch…

via Botching Bostock — Analogical Thoughts

Two kinds of leaders—Mark 10:42-45

 

I’m going to talk about two kinds of leaders in Mark 10:42-45, but the discussion will make fullest sense if I spend some time in the rest of Mark’s Gospel setting the stage for this. Jesus throughout Mark’s Gospel displays one kind of leadership. Some scholars like to play Jesus’s “Messianic secret” (his invoking silence…

via Two kinds of leaders—Mark 10:42-45 — Bible BackgroundBible Background

Stuck in the Mire of Our Love for this World — Tim Challies

Earlier this week a friend asked where he should start in reading Calvin’s Institutes. I suggested, as I often do, beginning with Calvin’s A Little Book on the Christian Life which is an excerpt of the larger work, and one focused largely on Christian living. Here’s a wonderful and timely extract from the new edition…

via Stuck in the Mire of Our Love for this World — Tim Challies

King Ahab: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

In our series of bioarchaeographies, we’ve alternated between Old Testament people, such as Tiglath-Pileser III, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Shishak, King David, Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Omri, and New Testament figures, like Caesar Augustus, Quirinius, Herod Agrippa I and II, Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, Gallio, and Sergius Paulus. In this article, we’ll explore the life of one of […]

via King Ahab: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

Exact Biblical Fulfillment

At least on a metaphorical level. After the Fall in Eden, the man, woman, and the serpent all stand judged at God’s tribunal. At this judgment scene the curse upon the serpent features two prophecies: 1. The Seed of the woman would crush the serpent’s head (This is future since Heb. 9.28 says a second appearance for salvation). 2. The serpent would pierce the heal of the Seed of the woman.

One of the few artifacts indicating Roman crucifixion shows a heal bone with an iron nail still embedded. This is how the prophecy of Gen. 3.15 was fulfilled. The people reading this  text probably were only aware of vipers instead of constrictors, and so would reason a fatal bite. It was. Gen. 3.15 also implies a resurrection since the crushing is after the harvest at the end of the age.

 

It is well–known from literature that the Romans crucified rebels and criminals. In 1968, an ossuary (bone box; see below) was found, among others, in a tomb in north Jerusalem in which were the bones of a 28 year old man and those of a child. A 4.3 inch nail penetrated the right heel bone […]

via Crucified Man from Jerusalem — HolyLandPhotos’ Blog

The Book of Job’s Storyline

For most Christians (and others reading the bible) the book of Job is enigmatic. However, by meditating (reflecting on what the text says), readers can gain some insights about Job’s struggles and their own as well. Craig Keener offers one of the better summaries of the book of Job. Not always, or even often, does God explain all of His workings to us. He has, though, given us all we need now during our time in this life.

I often think painfully of godly students or friends who died quite young—for example, Caritha Clarke, Nabeel Qureshi, Aaron Nickerson, and most recently Brittany Buchanan Douglas. The news of these events made little sense to me emotionally, though I have confidence in each case that they are celebrating now; they made it to God’s throne…

via Job and his comforters, or: how not to do grief counseling — Bible BackgroundBible Background

Fake Artifacts

The Forger Among Us: The Museum of the Bible Dead Sea Scrolls and the Recent History of Epigraphic Forgeries Prof. Christopher Rollston (Ph.D. Johns Hopkins University) rollston@gwu.edu Dept. of Classical and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations George Washington University On March 13, 2020, the Museum of the Bible held a symposium in Washington, D.C. …

via The Forger Among Us: The Museum of the Bible Dead Sea Scrolls and the Recent History of Epigraphic Forgeries — Rollston Epigraphy

Interview at Ian Paul’s Blog — Evangelical Textual Criticism

Over at his award winning blog (it’s true), Ian Paul has interviewed me about Myths & Mistakes, why skepticism sells, and whether textual criticism is the geekiest of the NT subdisciplines. Thanks to Ian for having me.

via Interview at Ian Paul’s Blog — Evangelical Textual Criticism

King Omri: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

During the period in Jewish history known as the Divided Monarchy, the formerly united Hebrew nation split into to two kingdoms: the kingdom of Israel in the north and the kingdom of Judah in the south. In our series of bioarchaeographies, we explored the lives of King Ahaz and King Hezekiah of Judah; we now […]

via King Omri: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

A Preliminary Evaluation and Critique of Prosopological Exegesis — Southern Equip

The post A Preliminary Evaluation and Critique of Prosopological Exegesis appeared first on Southern Equip.

via A Preliminary Evaluation and Critique of Prosopological Exegesis — Southern Equip

Herod Antipas: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

When Herod the Great died, his kingdom was divided among his sons by Caesar Augustus. Herod Antipater, better known as Antipas, was granted the right to rule Galilee and Perea. He was given the title of Tetrarch (“ruler of a quarter”), although he was sometimes known as King Herod, as his father had been (Mk […]

via Herod Antipas: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

Israel Research Trip, Post #1 — DrBarrick.org

Dr. Barrick’s post is informative, cogent, and better than anything I can come up with at the moment:

After one week of research on the ground in Jordan, we turned our attention to Israel for the next two weeks. On our first day, six of us drove a rented van south to the Negev and the Gulf of Aqaba. We went with two purposes in mind: (1) to visit the site of ancient…

via Israel Research Trip, Post #1 — DrBarrick.org

Agrippa II: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

In our next bioarchaeography we’ll be exploring the life of the last Herodian King: Herod Agrippa II. With five different Herods mentioned in Scripture (not to mention a couple of Philips who may also have born the name Herod) it can be difficult to keep them straight, so here’s a quick summary: Herod the Great […]

via Agrippa II: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

Shishak: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

It seems fitting that, having explored the lives of Hebrew, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian kings, we should now consider an Egyptian Pharaoh. While many Pharaohs in the book of Genesis are not named, following the convention of Moses’ day, later Pharaohs in Scripture are named, following the convention at the time of later authors.1 One […]

via Shishak: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

Paul’s Letter Carriers Tychicus And Onesimus — The Textual Mechanic

Ancient writings were largely circulated within communities through copying and distributing, with no legal copyright or formal system to control plagiarism. Once a work began to circulate the author became powerless to control the quality of the copying process or to select the audience that would read the work. The permanency of writing and the…

via Paul’s Letter Carriers Tychicus And Onesimus — The Textual Mechanic

“God Repented” vs Greek Ontology

Above: An approximation of Parmenides’ “what is.” THE CONFLICT There is an ongoing conflict between Biblical studies and philosophical theology. N.T. Wright sums it up this way in his essay “Historical Paul and Systematic Theology”: “In a famous conversation between Paul Tillich and C. H. Dodd at Union Seminary in New York, Tillich basically said that […]

via “God Repented” vs Greek Ontology — Colvinism

King David: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

Our next bioarchaeography is about one of the most fiercely-debated figures in the Old Testament. Some scholars believe King David was more myth than man who, if he existed, was nothing more than a tribal chief, and certainly not the historical king of a dynasty in Israel. For example, University of Sheffield Professor, Dr. Philip […]

via King David: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

Sergius Paulus: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

In our series of bioarchaeographies, we’ve been using archaeology to tell the life story of biblical figures. So far we’ve studied King Hezekiah, Pontius Pilate, Nebuchadnezzar, Gallio, and Tiglath-Pileser III. With each of these biblical characters, we’ve seen direct archaeological evidence that affirms their historicity as well as specific details in Scripture. Sometimes in archaeology, […]

via Sergius Paulus: An Archaeological Biography — Bible Archaeology Report

“Humane” Values and Christianity — Larry Hurtado’s Blog

I’m deep into Tom Holland’s latest book in which he argues at length that values that for many in the West are simply those of any humane, civilized person in fact are shaped heavily by the influence of Christianity: Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind (London: Little & Brown, 2019). Holland gave the gist of his […]

via “Humane” Values and Christianity — Larry Hurtado’s Blog

The Origins of Devotion to Jesus in its Ancient Context — Larry Hurtado’s Blog

(Several months ago, I was asked to write a contribution to a multi-author work on Jesus to be published in French, my contribution to deal with the origins of Jesus-devotion. I was given a word-limit, and so had to be brief. The result is something of a capsulized treatment of the matter. I post below […]

via The Origins of Devotion to Jesus in its Ancient Context — Larry Hurtado’s Blog

Review of Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah — PaleoJudaica.com

REVIEWS OF BIBLICAL AND EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES:2019.3.4 | Joshua A. Berman. Inconsistency in the Torah: Ancient Literary Convention and the Limits of Source Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. ISBN 9780190658809. Review by Lindsey A. Askin, University of Bristol.Excerpt:… We have always known the Pentateuch repeats itself but historically we have been less certain about…

via Review of Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah — PaleoJudaica.com

“Scribal Harmonization”: A New Study — Larry Hurtado’s Blog

I commend a newly-published study of what is called “harmonization” of texts of the Gospels: Cambry G. Pardee, Scribal Harmonization in the Synoptic Gospels, NTTSD, 60 (Leiden: Brill, 2019). I have just completed a larger review for Review of Biblical Literature which won’t appear till November this year, but the book deserves to be noticed […]

via “Scribal Harmonization”: A New Study — Larry Hurtado’s Blog

Still Not Living in The Matrix

James Anderson has a PhD in computer simulation from the University of Edinburgh so he knows what he speaks about regarding this concept. To me the concept is purely atheistic since it denies the obvious creation, design, and word of God. However, Dr. Anderson explains using logic what the better solution is:

 

A couple of commentators on a previous post pointed me to an Arc Digital article by Thomas Metcalf which contends that the Simulation Argument (SA) ought to be taken more seriously. (Metcalf’s article wasn’t written in response to mine, although it appeared a week or so afterward: post hoc sed non propter hoc.) I don’t…

via Still Not Living in a Computer Simulation — Analogical Thoughts

Supersessionism?

Craig Keener identifies some of the ideas that has led many to think that membership in a certain group is salvific. A better reading of the Torah sees both authentic believers in Israel’s history alongside “wicked fools” (see 2 Samuel 13.13). For certain, the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant but nowhere does the bible speak of a replacement of peoples. For sure God worked with National Israel but most (10 tribes) were divorced by the Lord for unfaithfulness. Salvation is from the Lord and not based on affiliation of group membership. Since Jesus inaugurated The New Covenant, all peoples weather Jew or Gentile have equal status and are accepted having their hearts cleansed by faith:

Paul certainly cared about Gentiles; his letters are replete with signs of his intimate concern for the members of the many congregations he started, many of whose members were Gentiles. The Bible also suggests that the Lord will return after the good news has been proclaimed among all peoples (Matt 24:14), probably related to Paul’s…

via Provoking Israel’s jealousy—Romans 11 — Bible BackgroundBible Background

The Inherent Frustration of Trusting Modern Science for Ultimate Truth

By “Modern Science” I mean the Post-Enlightenment idea that man is the standard for explaining himself and his environment. It is as if reality is perceived only through the things that resister from his own sensors. If God cannot be seen or touched then He must not be there according to fallen man. We moderns are easily dazzled by discovery of knowledge and the making of gizmos but often fail to realize that the laws of science which enabled that knowledge and gizmo presuppose an absolute Lawgiver. Those gizmos will not work without His laws either. Here is a post about something that Cornelius Van Til wrote which touches upon and expands this point. Van Til was probably the most incisive theologian of the Twentieth Century.

“It was useful to seek to apply the method of reasoning discussed in the previous chapters to the various schools of philosophy about us. However, since we have constantly sought to bring out that all forms of antitheistic thinking can be reduced to one, and since the issue is fundamentally that of the acceptance or […]

via Anti-theism Presupposes Theism — Presuppositionalism 101

“Pre-Existence” in Ancient Jewish Tradition and the NT — Larry Hurtado’s Blog

Larry Hurtado’s posts are succinct, incisive, clear, and filled with carefully studied positions. There is no “filler” in his writings. So, here is his latest post along with plenty of evidence to bolster his position.

 

One reader of my posts seems to have difficulty in grasping what scholars refer to as “pre-existence”. It’s a technical term, scholarly jargon/shorthand, to designate a motif or concept evident in a number of early Jewish and early Christian texts. In particular, a number of early Christian texts ascribe a “pre-existence” to Jesus. But there […]

via “Pre-Existence” in Ancient Jewish Tradition and the NT — Larry Hurtado’s Blog

Idols of a Mother’s Heart — Reformation21

If you’re a parent and a Christian, you’ve probably read your share of parenting books. Of the making of self-help parenting books, there is seemingly no end. If, like the writer of Ecclesiastes, you’ve been wearied by such study, Christina Fox’s new book, Idols of a Mother’s Heart, will be a balm for your soul.…

via Idols of a Mother’s Heart — Reformation21

When Mark Goodacre asked ‘Why not Matthew’s use of Luke?’ – SBL Denver 2018 — Alan Garrow Didache – Blog

Here is Goodacre on the Synoptic Problem and a response. I agree with the response and conclusion but do not think much of the “fatigue” theory of editing.

(A review, by Robert K. MacEwen, of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 18 November 2018)

It was standing room only in room 302 of the Denver Convention Center when Dr. Mark Goodacre, Frances Hill Fox Professor of Religious Studies at Duke University, took his place behind the lectern. Looking around, Goodacre expressed surprise at the size of the crowd. “You do realize this is a session on the Synoptic problem, don’t you?” he asked.

Certainly, Ron Huggins and I, seated in the front row, were not there by accident. We were eager to hear what Goodacre would say in response to our view of the relationships between the Gospels. The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis (MPH) has often been ignored by scholars, ever since it was first proposed by G. C. Storr in 1786.[1] Therefore, it is gratifying to proponents of the MPH that Goodacre is engaging with their theory. A year ago, Goodacre debated online with Alan Garrow in a “$1,000 Challenge.”[2] More recently, he gave a response to a paper by Garrow at the British New Testament Conference.[3] And now, Goodacre was taking on the MPH in a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature.[4]

Goodacre is today the most prominent advocate of the Farrer Hypothesis (FH)—the view that Luke used Matthew as well as Mark as sources in composing his Gospel. In defending his preferred solution to the Synoptic problem, Goodacre has primarily engaged with scholarship’s dominant theory, the Two Source Hypothesis (2SH), which argues that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and the hypothetical “Q” document as sources. The MPH, which is the view that Matthew came third and used Mark and Luke as his sources, is the logical third alternative to the other two hypotheses.

Goodacre’s Arguments against Matthew’s Use of Luke

Goodacre began and ended his paper by praising the MPH for its points of agreement with his own theory. He noted that the MPH correctly builds on the priority of Mark, insists on “a literary solution” to the Synoptic problem, and views Q with skepticism (1-3, 22). Naturally, the bulk of Goodacre’s paper was devoted to arguing that Luke’s use of Matthew explains the phenomena of the Gospels better than Matthew’s use of Luke.

Following his introduction, in a section titled, “First Impressions,” Goodacre set out features of Luke that he feels support dating it later than Matthew. These include Luke’s reference to earlier writings about Jesus (Luke 1:1), his use of the first person (Luke 1:1-4 and the “we” passages in Acts)—characteristic of later Gospels, and the historical references he has in common with Josephus.

The next section of Goodacre’s paper was titled, “Matthew’s Redactional Fingerprints”. Here, Goodacre presents two verses in the triple tradition containing minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark (Matt 14:1322:27; and parr.), arguing that these are examples in which Luke adopted Matthew’s characteristic wording. Next, he displayed the double tradition pericope John the Baptist’s Preaching (Matt 3:7-10//Luke 3:7-9) and argued that its key elements are distinctive of Matthew’s literary and theological features.

Goodacre’s next section presented his argument from “editorial fatigue” (already well-known to his readers[5]), involving passages in which “an author inadvertently betrays his use of a source by making characteristic changes at the beginning of a passage only to revert to the source’s wording later in the same passage”. Goodacre presented the Parable of the Entrusted Money (Matt 25:14-30//Luke 19:11-27) as “[o]ne of the best examples” of Luke fatiguing in his use of Matthew. He also asserts that there are “multiple examples of fatigue” in both Matthew’s and Luke’s use of Mark, “several cases” of fatigue in Luke’s use of Matthew in the double tradition, but no examples of Matthew apparently fatiguing in using Luke.[6]

The following section is on Luke’s “Knowledge of Matthew’s Literary Structures”. Here Goodacre gave the example of Luke 7:1, where Luke concludes the Sermon on the Plain with a construction similar to those used by Matthew at the end of all five of his major discourses of Jesus. Goodacre’s point being that Luke has, in this single instance, adopted a motif that is characteristic of Matthew.

After this, Goodacre discussed “Matthew’s Failure to Include Congenial Lukan Details”. Here the argument is that, since Matthew includes more information about contemporary political leaders than does Mark, it is surprising that he omits Luke’s list of seven rulers in Luke 3:1-2 (cf. Matt 3:1) if Luke were also his source.

Goodacre’s final section was titled, “What is the Appeal of Matthean Posteriority?” Here he states that MPH proponents make use of two “popular arguments for Q” that are actually invalid “old chestnuts, the argument from order, and the argument from Lucan primitivity”. Regarding Luke’s alleged primitiveness in the double tradition, Goodacre makes three substantive points in response. Regarding the argument from order, he suggests that scholars have been hoodwinked by B. H. Streeter’s “rhetoric” and, in a footnote, refers readers to his earlier discussion of this topic.

A Matthean Posteriority Response to Goodacre’s Arguments

Having outlined the contents of Goodacre’s paper, I now offer a Matthean posteriority response. Regarding a second-century date for Luke, the arguments for this are hardly conclusive. Luke’s historical references in common with Josephus do not establish that Luke depended on Josephus; such information could have been known from many sources, including hearsay, in the first century. In favor of a first-century date for Luke, it is possible that some very early Christian writings depended on Luke (cf. Luke 10:17 with 1 Tim 5:18and Luke 24:36-43 with Ign. Smyrn. 3). As for Luke’s similarities to later, non-canonical Gospels, we should not forget that Luke has even greater similarities to Mark and Matthew.

Goodacre’s argument that Luke incorporates Matthean redaction is also not conclusive for his theory; there are also many examples in which Matthew appears to be aware of Lukan redaction.[7] The fact that Matthew uses an expression such as “offspring of vipers” more often than Luke does not necessitate that Luke received it from Matthew. Otherwise, Matthew’s multiple use of Markan items such as the accusation “prince of demons” (Matt 9:3410:2512:24Mark 3:22), the proclamation “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (Matt 3:24:17Mark 1:15), or the title “son of David” (ten times in Matthew, three times in Mark) would prove that Matthew could not have been dependent on Mark. On the contrary, on a Markan priority view, such Matthean repetitions show that Matthew had the tendency to multiply expressions from his sources that he found congenial.

Helping to confirm this Matthean tendency is an interesting feature of several of the expressions that Goodacre regards as Matthew’s characteristic expressions picked up once by Luke. In each case, it is Matthew’s first use of the expression that is parallel to Luke’s use of it: (1) “offspring of vipers”—Matt 3:7//Luke 3:7Matt 12:3423:33; (2) “weeping and gnashing of teeth”—Matt 8:12//Luke 13:28Matt 13:425022:1324:5125:30; (3) “you of little faith”—Matt 6:30//Luke 12:28Matt 8:2614:3116:8; (4) “And it happened when Jesus finished . . .”—Matt 7:28//Luke 7:1Matt 11:113:5319:126:1. This phenomenon suggests that, in each case, Matthew first encountered the usage in Luke, found it congenial, and chose to use where Luke does and again in other appropriate settings.

As for the alleged Matthean character of John the Baptist’s Preaching (Matt 3:7-10//Luke 3:7-9), this could be explained by Matthew’s desire (worked out later in his Gospel) to show Jesus and John as being in agreement. Certainly, this is what Matthew does in his redaction of Mark, when he puts the initial message of Jesus on the lips of John as well (Matt 3:1-2Matt 4:17//Mark 1:15).

Goodacre’s discussion of Matt 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9 would have been more balanced had he mentioned the different target audiences of John’s preaching in the two Gospels. In Luke 3:7 John warns the crowds in general, while in Matt 3:7John polemicizes against the Pharisees and Sadducees. Here Luke’s usage appears to be more primitive, while Matthew’s appears redactional (Matthew is the only evangelist who groups the Pharisees and Sadducees together. See Matt 16:1611-1222:34.).

“Editorial fatigue” is an important argument for the FH, at least if Goodacre is entirely correct in his analysis of the phenomena. More work needs to be done on this issue by a variety of scholars. Questions to be answered include: (1) Is it true that there are no plausible examples of Matthew fatiguing when editing Luke? (2) Could it sometimes be editorial alertness rather than editorial fatigue? That is, could it be Gospel A removing inconcinnities in editing Gospel B rather than Gospel B creating inconcinnities in editing Gospel A?

As for Matthew’s failure to include Luke’s list of seven rulers (cf. Matt 3:1Luke 3:1-2), Goodacre’s argument here may be suggestive, but it is not strong. It is typical for Matthew to shorten his narratives by deleting material from Mark, including material with inherent interest (e.g., cf. Matt 9:1-8 with Mark 2:1-12Matt 9:18-26 with Mark 5:21-43). Matthew never mentions political leaders unless they are part of his story. He could have easily omitted Luke’s seven-name list because it had no theological or narrative significance for him.

Roasting the “Chestnuts”

Goodacre views “alternating primitivity” in the double tradition as a poor argument for Q (one of “two old chestnuts”) that MPH proponents have attempted to co-opt for their theory. I agree that Matthew and Luke’s apparent alternating primitiveness is not sufficient to establish the mutual independence of these two Gospels. Goodacre’s strongest argument here is that Luke could have sometimes replaced the wording he found in Matthew with an expression known to him from oral tradition. Of course, this argument is reversible—one could just as well say, on the MPH, that Matthew could have been influenced by oral tradition while using Luke as a source.[8]

Goodacre is on much shakier ground when it comes to his other “old chestnut,” the argument from order. In accusing MPH proponents of substituting “a repackaging of Streeter for an attempt to engage seriously with his critics” (20), he seems to be engaging in the kind of hand-waving he attributes to others. In fact, the matter of order and arrangement of the double tradition material is a serious problem for the FH, because its proponents must explain why Luke used Matthew in ways that make it look as if it was Matthew who used Luke.

Assuming Markan priority, we can see how both Matthew and Luke used their source Mark. For the most part, Luke does not change Mark’s pericope order, does not recontextualize Mark’s sayings, and does not expand Mark’s discourses. Matthew, however, frequently does all of those things in using Mark. The last four of Matthew’s five major discourses were all created around a smaller core of Markan material, expanded by additional sayings material relevant to each discourse’s theme. Since Matthew’s first major discourse, the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7), is a longer version of Luke’s Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-49), it is logical to assume that Matthew expanded this Lukan discourse just the way he did the four Markan ones.

On the other hand, if Luke used Matthew as a source, he would have picked apart Matthew’s sermon and distributed small bits of it into multiple new contexts throughout his Gospel (in Luke’s chapters 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16). Such a procedure would have been exceedingly complex for an ancient writer. Even a writer equipped with a modern word-processor would find such an operation extremely taxing. It raises the questions, “Why would Luke have done this?” and “How could Luke have done this?” Admittedly, there is also complexity in Matthew’s composition of his discourses using multiple sources. Yet it is much easier to envision Matthew gathering material from multiple contexts in order to compose a discourse with a single large theme in mind than it is to imagine Luke breaking up a discourse with multiple small contexts in mind. To say this is not to deny that Luke was a “great literary artist”;[9] it is simply to affirm that he was a normal ancient writer.[10]

The Crucial Issue: Verbatim Agreement

My main disappointment with Goodacre’s paper is that he did not discuss the issue of verbatim agreement among the Gospels, except to affirm that the Synoptic problem is a literary problem. Here, briefly, is why MPH proponents believe that the patterns of verbatim agreement support their theory:

As anyone who has spent time coloring a Synopsis knows, there is extensive word-for-word agreement (1) between Matthew and Mark wherever they have common material and (2) between Matthew and Luke in the double tradition. There is much less verbatim agreement between Mark and Luke. So, Matthew is the common factor wherever we find the strongest verbatim agreement among the Gospels.

Research into the practices of ancient writers has shown that it was unusual for them to copy extensively from their sources at length; they preferred to show their skill and creativity by changing their sources’ wording.[11] In light of this, it is somewhat unexpected if one of the evangelists regularly copied his sources verbatim at length. And it is surprising and problematic if more than one of the evangelists did so. Yet this is what both the 2SH and the FH require. On the 2SH, Matthew was a close copier of both Mark and Q while Luke was a close copier of Q—but not of Mark. On the FH, Matthew was a close copier of Mark while Luke was a close copier of Matthew—but not of Mark. Note Luke’s inconsistency on both hypotheses.

In terms of verbatim agreement, the MPH is the simplest and most straightforward hypothesis. On the MPH, only one of the evangelists, Matthew, is required to have behaved unusually in terms of ancient conventions for using sources. Also on the MPH, neither Luke nor Matthew need be seen as behaving inconsistently in their use of sources. Luke consistently paraphrases from his one source that we know, Mark; we are free to assume that he did the same with his sources that we do not know. Matthew is consistent in closely copying from his two sources Mark and Luke.[12]

Conclusion

Goodacre, a noted expert on the Synoptic problem, is exceptionally qualified to identify the problems of the MPH. It is worth pausing to notice, therefore, a genuinely remarkable feature of this discussion: Goodacre’s best arguments against the MPH are either weak, readily reversible or inconclusive. And not only that, they fail to address the point that the phenomena of (1) order and arrangement of material and (2) verbatim agreement in the Gospels uphold the MPH and work against the FH. “Why not Matthew’s use of Luke?” is still a great question.

Despite my criticisms, Goodacre deserves appreciation for his paper. He has advanced the discussion of the Synoptic problem by his willingness to engage with the MPH, the often neglected third alternative to the relationship between Matthew and Luke. May the debate continue!


Robert K. MacEwen is a missionary with Cru and an adjunct faculty member at East Asia School of Theology, Singapore. He received his PhD in biblical studies from Dallas Theological Seminary.

 

What happened when Mark Goodacre addressed the Synoptic Gospels section at SBL Denver? Rob MacEwen (pictured) reports for the Logos Academic Blog.

via When Mark Goodacre asked ‘Why not Matthew’s use of Luke?’ – SBL Denver 2018 — Alan Garrow Didache – Blog

Dibon and the Moabite (or Mesha) Stone — Ferrell’s Travel Blog

Here is another great installment from Farrell’s Travel Blog:

Dibon is mentioned in the account of the defeat of King Sihon (Numbers 21:30), and was later built by the sons of Gad (Numbers 32:34). It is located in the “plain of Medeba [Madaba]” (Joshua 13:9), and is associated with Heshbon (Joshua 13:17). Upon the return from Babylon some of the sons of Judah lived […]

via Dibon and the Moabite (or Mesha) Stone — Ferrell’s Travel Blog

Kh. Qeiyafa and Kh. al–Ra’i — Yosef Garfinkel Lecture — HolyLandPhotos’ Blog

IMHO — this is not to be missed! See the following. The Lanier Theological Library has posted a 72-minute video of an illustrated lecture by Yosef Garfinkel entitled “Searching for the Historical King David: Khirbet Qeiyafa and Khirbet al–Ra’i. Qeiyafa, in the Judean lowlands (=Shephelah), was excavated by him from 2007 through 2013 and is […]

via Kh. Qeiyafa and Kh. al–Ra’i — Yosef Garfinkel Lecture — HolyLandPhotos’ Blog