... From: Ron Price To: Synoptic-L Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The
Message 1 of 1
, Feb 21, 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Price <ron.price@...>
To: Synoptic-L <Synoptic-L@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 4:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The coherence of Q
> I have studied it, but not read it from cover to cover. Yes, Prof.
> Kloppenborg must have spent a lot of time and effort on the task. It
> reminds me, at a different level, of the 28 pages allocated by Dr.
> Guthrie to the authorship of 2 Peter in his NT Introduction. In other
> words, a sensitive scholar will spend a disproportionate amount of time
> and effort in apologetic on the issue which is perceived as the most
> serious weakness.
What is the evidence that Kloppenborg has been motivated to reconstruct the
setting of Q by a perceived weakness in the Two Source Hypothesis?
After reading it cover to cover, it seems to me that Kloppenborg is in
dialogue much more with Q theorists who refuse to attempt to reconstruct the
setting of Q such as John P. Meier than with detractors of the Two Source
Hypothesis such as Michael Goulder. Thus, I don't consider the parallel to
Guthrie to be apt here, because while Guthrie is writing primarily in
apologetic against those who hold to the inauthenticity of 2 Peter,
Kloppenborg is writting primarily against those who hold to Q but have
different ideas about its setting or refuse to pontificate.
> > It is quite tenable to believe that a document as a whole
> >presents a coherent outlook yet that close analysis reveals a source
> >the document with its own integrity.
> But, to use your example, once we realize that John went through
> multiple editions, it is impossible thereafter to maintain that the last
> edition is as coherent as the first.
I don't see it yet. What do we mean by 'coherent'? If there exists a
pre-Markan passion narrative incorporated into Mark, does that make Mark
less 'coherent'? Perhaps we need to define our terms before proceeding with
this argument. And what is it about being 'incoherent' that makes a
document cease to exist? Perhaps the argument needs to be clarified.
> >More seriously: I am toying with the idea that the original Q document
> >have been originally a wisdom collection that was not attributed to the
> >historical Jesus. On this hypothesis, I have found three plausible
> >references to Q as scripture from second century Christian authors.
> This seems bizarre to me. Second century writers could certainly have
> referred to the gospels as "what is written". Indeed we have a clear
> example in John 20:31, which uses GEGRAPTAI to refer to John 1-20.
This is not a scriptural formula being used to introduce a saying attributed
to Jesus. That is what I find odd in Barnabas and in 1 Timothy. When the
author of First Clement, by contrast, wishes to quote from the words of
Jesus, he says, "the Lord Jesus spoke." That makes more sense than saying,
"it is written," with no indication that the material came from Jesus, even
if the material is being borrowed from a Gospel. Moreover, it could be
suggested that the Gospels were not considered to be of scriptural status on
a level with the OT at the time of the writing of 1 Timothy. Finally, the
words are attributed simply to "God" in Second Clement.
In any case, even if the theory about the Q document originally having no
attribution to Jesus is incorrect, nonetheless it is at least equally
plausible to hold that these references are to Q as it is to hold that they
are to a canonical Gospel. (It is difficult to prove that they are to Q
simply because Q, if it existed, is known only through Matthew and Luke.)
> Anyway in the life of Jesus we have a very plausible setting for
> sayings about the "kingdom of God" (Jews under Roman occupation). I
> doubt whether you will find such a suitable setting anywhere else.
The Q document may well have been produced in the Galilee by Jews under
Roman occupation. (Indeed, it is plausible that the historical Jesus
influenced the Q community yet that the document was first framed as an
anonymous wisdom collection.)
> There is also the small matter of Jesus' own contribution to
> Christianity. If he contributed nothing apart from getting himself
> executed by the Romans, how did he ever become famous? Lots of people
> suffered that fate.
I might make a suggestion here, but I wonder whether it would be off-topic.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer.
We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.