Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [J_D_G_DunnSeminar] hermeneutical circle, unity of Q, and the egg and hen topos

Expand Messages
  • Meta Dunn
    Dear Daniel Stoeckl, Thanks for the questions. And apologies for the delay in replying. The final pile of questions outran the time I had available for
    Message 1 of 1 , May 7, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Daniel Stoeckl,
      Thanks for the questions. And apologies for the delay in replying. The
      final pile of questions outran the time I had available for prompter reply. So
      I hope this gets back to you.
      1) I'm not sure I follow the question. My basic thesis is that the stable
      factors of a tradition are most likely to have provided the frame and core round
      which the tradition is told and retold in many performance variations. So
      rather than having to penetrate through many layers, identification of the
      stable elements (where that is possible, and by no means is it always possible)
      are likely to take one back to the beginning of the traditioning process
      proper. Here another element of my thesis 'kicks in': that the stable
      elements are not simply the result of the impact made by whatever teaching the
      tradition contains but are themselves in a real sense part of the impact
      itself. I hope that makes sense.
      2) I agree with the basic thrust of the question. I too am sceptical about
      reconstructing a single Q document. It's very noticeable that John
      Kloppenborg's latest assumes that Q is like an artefact buried at the foot of
      the tel ('Excavating Q') - and has to assume such otherwise the rationale for
      the whole enterprise is undermined. For myself I suspect we are better
      thinking in terms of a cut down Q, plus various collections (mainly oral, but
      some in writing), plus individual elements kep alive in the community
      traditioning processes - and if you want to say Q is just one of these
      collections, then I wouldn't want much to disagree.
      3) There are fascinating issues here, more than I can take up at this
      stage. Many years ago I found myself very impressed by the logic of Bauer's
      Orthodox and Heresy - that the 'original founding traditions' in some prominent
      Christian centres were what later became regarded as 'heresy' and were expelled
      by a victorious 'orthodoxy'. You suggest a similar, variant scenario. I will
      want to look at all these possibilities more closely when I turn my attention to
      a later phase of the traditioning process and the spread of the Jesus
      movement. But I hope what I've said thus far makes some sense.
      Shalom, Jimmy Dunn

      Daniel Stoekl wrote:

      > 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
      > seminar!
      > Daniel Stoekl
      > Department of Comparative Religion
      > Hebrew University, Jerusalem
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > J_D_G_DunnSeminar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > To contact the List Owner, send an e-mail to:
      > J. D_G_DunnSeminar-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.