10 Comments


  1. But, as some have dared to demonstrate, innovation (adding to, rewording, making use of in some way) was required even when borrowing a previous text.

    Clearly not a reference to Mark Driscoll. But it does show that Driscoll is a plagiarist not only by modern standards but even by ancient ones.

    Reply

    1. There was one case of ancient plagiarism. Martial found his words under someone else’s name. This wasn’t imitation, etc… but out right theft, something Driscoll is known for it appears.

      Reply

  2. Just once, I’d like to see one of these synoptic problem diagrams avoid the use of arrows. Must we always use arrows? Wouldn’t it be super cool to see it depicted in sound waves or ripples in a pond?

    Reply
    1. John C. Poirier

      How about tournament brackets?

      Reply
  3. John C. Poirier

    On Matthew’s use of Mark, there’s a new book, which I just read: J. Andrew Doole, *What was Mark for Matthew? An Examination of Matthew’s Relationship and Attitude to his Primary Source* (WUNT 2/344; Tuebingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2013).

    Doole disagrees with Sim and O’Leary, thinking that Matthew was not trying to replace Mark, but to supplement him. I can’t say I agree with that.

    Reply

    1. Not having read that book, I don’t know the arguments, but I cannot argue for supplementing Mark. Matthew as preserving Mark, but I do not think in any attempt to have Mark next to his work.

      Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!