 previous article in this issue | next article in this issue  |
Preview first page |
Document Details : Title: Goulder and the Minor Agreements Author(s): NEIRYNCK, F. Journal: Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Volume: 73 Issue: 1 Date: 1997 Pages: 84-93 DOI: 10.2143/ETL.73.1.504817 Abstract : Mark S. Goodacre's book on Goulder and the Gospels has a 42-page chapter on the minor agreements (MAs). The author notices that “Goulder's own statements on his methodology have been a little ambiguous” and he proposes “to look more closely at the way in which Goulder argues the case”. Goul- der's thesis is Lukan dependence on Matthew, and Goodacre distinguishes five different arguments on the MAs: 1. Matthean, un-Lukan wording; 2. Order; 3. Clusters of not very Lukan words; 4. Luke's dependence on Matthew's redaction; 5. Undoubtable links and coincidence of hapax(92-101). Special attention is given to the case of Goulder's “key MA” at Mk 14,65 (101-107). Then, Goodacre argues more personally on six examples “featuring language characteristic of Matthew and uncharacteristic of Luke” (at Mk 3,10; 4,41; 6,2; 6,33; 12,22; 14,43) and concludes that “in at least six different MAs, Goulder's criteria are satisfied” (107-117). Finally, he proceeds to some sort of control text: is it possible to point to MAs featuring language characteristic of Luke and uncharacteristic of Matthew? He presents two counter-examples, at Mk 6,44 (ὠσεί) and 12,28 (νομικός, but the textual evidence in Mt 22,35 is inconclusive for G.): “there is at least one MA which satisfies the converse of Goulder's criteria” (117-122). |
|
