Dear Professor Dunn
I am not sure which "7 pm" is the deadline on the internet, Great Britain,
or San Francisco. In the hope for the latter I dare to post the following
remarks and questions:
I most appreciated your and Bailey's distinction between different levels of
collective control depending on the form (story/wisdom-saying, etc).
My questions are:
1) Generally: I did not completely understand, if you want to make a
connection between the observation of common wording in two versions as most
*important* "key points", memorized by every re-teller, and the age of a
tradition. If yes, is this not a kind of hermeneutical circle? If no, is
there any connection?
2) To chapter 4.2: I have never understood, why Q has to be *one* source. It
always seemed to me that it is a somewhat superficial solution to assign the
material common to Mt and Lk to Q and e.g. the non-Mk material in Mt, which
does not appear in Lk to Q-Mt. Is is not easier to suppose many Q's behind
the common traditions of Mt and Lk, and therefore any reconstruction of a
"theology of Q" or "community behind Q" as futile?
3) Regarding unity of tradition, which came up in the discussion: Are there
not two possible directions for the connection between being a "sect" and
having a "deviant teaching"? A sect may be a sect because it has a deviant
teaching / telling, but is it not equally possible, that an "original"
teaching may become deviant, since its traditors are outcasted for another
reason (economic, personal, sociologic, ethnic, etc)?
Thank you very much for your inspiring article and the highly interesting
Department of Comparative Religion
Hebrew University, Jerusalem