Turning the tables on Q
Reading David Parker’s short article Textual Criticism and Theology (Expository Times (118.12 [Sept 2007], pp. 583-89) in the course of a different conversation I almost missed the import of one of his arguments:
It is a reasonable argument that Matthew, having produced a thoroughly revised and expanded version of Mark, would not have been surprised to know that Luke took both Mark and Matthew and made a very different version.
And without a single footnote, the Farrer theory sailed on. Now I’m so used to seeing Q-theorists do this without mentioning that it’s a hypothesis not a text, that I can’t begin to express my delight at David doing the opposite. Clearly sharing teaching loads over a number of years with Mark Goodacre is healthy for his argument. (Mind you, this paper was first delivered in Birmingham, where gospels have dwelt long in Goulder’s and Goodacre’s shadow)
Of course, both should note the hypothetical nature of the underlying argument, but on this occasion it’s so much fun to see the boot on the other foot, that I really can’t carp.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:03 pm