Zeba Crook wrote:
>This may be more of a question than an answer, but could it have to do with
>redactional vs. compositional descriptions? What Kloppenborg Verbin says
>about Mt collecting sayings making more sense than Lk scattering them is a
>redactional comment -- it attempts to understand how and why Mt/Lk would
>have treated their sayings source.
Yes, it is a redactional comment. But the scattering is assumed to be
unlikely because it resulted in debris, i.e. text with very little
coherence. Yet the editor of Q is equally unlikely to have created
debris, so the argument about debris is two-sided.
In any case the editorial activity on the sayings source involved
predominantly scattering rather than gathering, because even if we
restrict ourselves to considering standard blocks within Matthew and
Luke, their total size is considerably bigger than the proposed Q. Thus
e.g. in Luke even ignoring the space taken there by the Temptation etc.,
the Sermon on the Plain plus the Journey to Jerusalem is at least 50%
bigger than Q, hence there must be a net scattering of Q material on the
> We have no idea what AuQ was up to, what
>she was thinking when using these sayings.
> Maybe AuQ did not notice, when
>taking up these sayings that there was any connection, and maybe Luke too
>took them up without noticing that, but Mt did.
You seem to be admitting that there *is* a connection. Certainly
Au_Matt thought so, for they are situated in the discourse on mission.
As we know for sure that the sayings source dealt with the topic of
mission, the question is which synoptic author changed the sayings'
context. I think Au_Luke changed the context. For example, (s)he placed
'Nothing hidden' (Lk 12:2-9) in a context which implies it's all about
hypocrisy (12:1), whereas these verses surely fit better in a mission
> At any rate, I don't
>believe the 2DH has much to say, nor needs to say much, about the
>compositional strategies of AuQ, beyond the issue of framing;
I don't understand the relevance of framing here, or why it's an
exception to your disclaimer.
Anyway I must disagree about 2DH obligations. The 2DH predicts that
the double tradition (or something very close to it) once existed as a
stand-alone source. As with the predictions of any other hypothesis,
this prediction should be tested. One of the tests should be whether
this text is viable as a stand-alone document. A part of this test
should be whether we can envisage an intelligent person creating this
document. If the document contains "debris", this should set the alarm
bells ringing. Perhaps the document didn't exist, at least in the form
indicated by the 2DH.
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...