Comments on: Matt 3:11-Mark 1:7-Luke 3:16 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2010/02/matt-311-mark-17-luke-316/ Removing the mystery from discourse grammar Mon, 02 Aug 2010 02:41:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: John Murphy http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2010/02/matt-311-mark-17-luke-316/comment-page-1/#comment-1375 John Murphy Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:31:06 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=1006#comment-1375 Agreed, Steve. It's nice to have someone out there (besides Eta Linneman) who says the "Evangelists really were thinkers, not robots." The possibility seems to have escaped a lot of people who are very intelligent otherwise... Agreed, Steve. It’s nice to have someone out there (besides Eta Linneman) who says the “Evangelists really were thinkers, not robots.” The possibility seems to have escaped a lot of people who are very intelligent otherwise…

]]> By: Steve Runge http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2010/02/matt-311-mark-17-luke-316/comment-page-1/#comment-1359 Steve Runge Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:35:53 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=1006#comment-1359 John, I won't be selling Q since I didn't buy it. I will be focusing on the discourse significance of variation within primarily the triple tradition material, posting on neat things I find. I hope to present some of these findings at ETS and SBL as micro-level evidence that that Evangelist really were thinkers, not robots. Even if one accepted the idea of an underlying source, what was it about the wording in the non-Markan source that was appealing. One still has to engage this issue, source or not. John, I won’t be selling Q since I didn’t buy it. I will be focusing on the discourse significance of variation within primarily the triple tradition material, posting on neat things I find. I hope to present some of these findings at ETS and SBL as micro-level evidence that that Evangelist really were thinkers, not robots. Even if one accepted the idea of an underlying source, what was it about the wording in the non-Markan source that was appealing. One still has to engage this issue, source or not.

]]> By: John Murphy http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2010/02/matt-311-mark-17-luke-316/comment-page-1/#comment-1357 John Murphy Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:45 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=1006#comment-1357 Don't get me started ranting on Q and the synoptic theory. Ever since I first heard it as a sophomore in college it has struck me as an Emperor's New clothes argument. Scholars refer to Q all the time as if it were real and actual and not a single shred of evidence, document, etc. exists for it. Fortunately Eta Linneman saved me with her (out of print I suspect) book, "Is There a Synoptic Problem?" Short summary: No. I suspect her book wasn't well received because everyone was too concerned about being accepted by the "academic establishment," which seems remarkably similar to what we see in the global warming shenanigans. Thank the Lord for Eta Linneman. Don’t get me started ranting on Q and the synoptic theory. Ever since I first heard it as a sophomore in college it has struck me as an Emperor’s New clothes argument. Scholars refer to Q all the time as if it were real and actual and not a single shred of evidence, document, etc. exists for it. Fortunately Eta Linneman saved me with her (out of print I suspect) book, “Is There a Synoptic Problem?” Short summary: No. I suspect her book wasn’t well received because everyone was too concerned about being accepted by the “academic establishment,” which seems remarkably similar to what we see in the global warming shenanigans. Thank the Lord for Eta Linneman.

]]> By: Micheal W. Palmer http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2010/02/matt-311-mark-17-luke-316/comment-page-1/#comment-1354 Micheal W. Palmer Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:21:17 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=1006#comment-1354 Aland's Synopsis is awesome. It's a great way to observe this kind of issue. Whether or not Luke and Matthew drew from Q, they clearly did quite different things with the material. I love this kind of close comparison of related texts because it makes it easy to see discourse features that might go unnoticed in a casual reading of either text in isolation. Aland’s Synopsis is awesome. It’s a great way to observe this kind of issue.

Whether or not Luke and Matthew drew from Q, they clearly did quite different things with the material.

I love this kind of close comparison of related texts because it makes it easy to see discourse features that might go unnoticed in a casual reading of either text in isolation.

]]>