"Major Agreements"?: The Synoptic Problem and Mark Goodacre's Redescription of the "Mark–Q Overlaps"
Synoptic specialist and Lucan posteriority proponent Mark Goodacre has recently called for a "mandatory retirement" of the term "Mark-Q overlaps" as a description of a set of data. He suggests that it fails to characterize neutrally the overlap phenomenon between the double and t...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Catholic Biblical Association of America
2022
|
| In: |
The catholic biblical quarterly
Year: 2022, Volume: 84, Issue: 2, Pages: 231-251 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Synoptic meteorology
/ Q
|
| IxTheo Classification: | HC New Testament KAB Church history 30-500; early Christianity |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Synoptic specialist and Lucan posteriority proponent Mark Goodacre has recently called for a "mandatory retirement" of the term "Mark-Q overlaps" as a description of a set of data. He suggests that it fails to characterize neutrally the overlap phenomenon between the double and triple Synoptic traditions, proposing instead the following redescription: "major agreements." In this essay I examine Goodacre's argument, showing it to exhibit a questionable characterization of a number of aspects of the Two-Document hypothesis and to inadequately redescribe the data. Along the way, I clarify the use of the term "Mark-Q overlaps" as comprising, on the Q side of the overlaps, sayings rather than narrative material. In the conclusion, I propose a neutral solution to the issue of nomenclature. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2163-2529 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The catholic biblical quarterly
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1353/cbq.2022.0045 |