Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm

418 Pages·19.313 MB·English

by  Mark Goodacre

l i b r a r y o f n e w t e s t a m e n t s t u d i e s
GouLder ANd The
GoSpeLS
An examination of a New paradigm

Mark S. Goodacre
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
133
Executive Editor
Stanley E. Porter
Editorial Board
Richard Bauckham, David Catchpole, R. Alan Culpepper,
Margaret Davies, James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl,
Robert Fowler, Robert Jewett, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon
Sheffield Academic Press

Goulder and the
Gospels
An Examination of a New Paradigm
Mark S. Goodacre
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series 133
Copyright © 1996 Sheffield Academic Press
Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd
Mansion House
19KingfieldRoad
Sheffield SI 19AS
England
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available
from the British Library
EISBN 9781850756316
CONTENTS
Foreword by Michael Goulder 9
Preface 11
Abbreviations 12
Chapter 1
GOULDER AND HIS CRITICS 17
Parti
TWO STUDIES IN THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
Chapter 2
QC WORDS AND CHARACTERISTIC VOCABULARY 42
Chapter 3
THE MINOR AGREEMENTS AND CHARACTERISTIC LANGUAGE 89
Part II
LUKE'S SPECIAL MATERIAL
Chapter 4
INTRODUCTION TO PART II: DISTINCTIVE FEATURES IN L 132
Chapter 5
INTRODUCTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS TO PERICOPAE (§ 1 AND §2) 136
Chapter 6
PROMPTITUDE AND ALACRITY (§3) 159
6 Goulder and the Gospels
Chapter 7
HUMAN CHARACTERS (§4) 166
Chapter 8
MIDDLE-CLASS SETTING (§5) 194
Chapter 9
ALLEGORY AND ILLUSTRATION-STORIES (§6 AND §7) 202
Chapter 10
HORTATORY PARABLES (§8) 217
Chapter 11
MUDDLE (§9) 230
Chapter 12
ORATIO RECTA REPETITIONS (§11) 238
Chapter 13
INFERENCE OF SETTING (§ 13) 244
Chapter 14
COMBINING SOURCES, SPLITTING SOURCES
AND TRANSFERRING ELEMENTS (§ 15, § 16, § 17) 256
Chapter 15
OTHER LUKAN FEATURES 265
Chapter 16
CONCLUSION TO PART II 273
Part III
THE LECTIONARY THEORY
Chapter 17
INTRODUCTION TO PART III: THE LECTIONARY THEORY 294
Contents 7
Chapter 18
REACTIONS TO THE LECTIONARY THEORY 304
Chapter 19
EARLY CHRISTIAN WORSHIP 319
Chapter 20
JEWISH LECTIONARIES 330
Chapter 21
THE STRENGTH OF THE CORRESPONDENCES 340
Chapter 22
CONCLUSION TO PART III 360
Chapter 23
CONCLUSION 363
Bibliography of Michael Goulder 370
Select Bibliography 376
Index of References 393
Index of Authors 414

FOREWORD
Half a dozen times a year, until my retirement in 1994, I used to
organize a public disputation at the University of Birmingham. The
topics were theological or biblical, and the format proved popular.
Between seventy and two hundred people would attend, to hear two
contrasting views of the same topic, in the hope of clearing their minds
and deciding what was the better position. At first I would often be one
of the disputants myself: I had new ideas to sell, and my services were
free. Among those coming was an RE teacher from Burton-on-Trent,
Janet Goodacre, and her teenage son Mark, who looked bright but was
silent.
I was surprised in due course to be told by an Oxford friend, 'One of
your students has got a scholarship here'; for I have no students in this
sense. 'Well, his papers were full of your theories', was the comment.
Three years later Mark Goodacre got the top First of his year, and he
went on to do an MPhil on Lectionary Theories of the Gospels, under
the then Dean Ireland Professor, Ed Sanders. I was happy to be shown
the thesis on its way and to discover that in Mark's view all lectionary
theories were flawed, with the sole exception of my own. He got the
MPhil in 1990, and then he went on to a DPhil, the result of which is
the present volume. Its flattering title masks some rather less flattering
conclusions. It is a study of four of the hypotheses which I have
advanced over the years about the Synoptic Gospels: on the Matthean
vocabulary, the Minor Agreements, Lukan creativity and the lectionary
background. I am afraid that the idol is shown to totter a good deal,
even if, in the final issue, it is usually left standing.
The book has four enormous virtues (at least). It can discriminate a
good argument from a bad one. It shows an enviable ability to think up
tests for hypotheses, instead of merely finding them 'persuasive' or
'unconvincing'. It has a high standard of accuracy, often noticing
examples (and counter-examples) which I had missed. And finally,