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

[Excavating-Q] Reply to Ken Olson

Expand Messages
  • John Kloppenborg by way ofStephen C. Ca
    Dr. Olson asks an important question concerning the extent of Q: Now, given that Mark and Q overlapped, and that Luke might have omitted pericopes from Q, how
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 31, 2000
      Dr. Olson asks an important question concerning the extent of Q:

      "Now, given that Mark and Q overlapped, and that Luke might have omitted
      pericopes from Q, how do we know that Q did not overlap more extensively
      with the triple tradition than the cases you state under (b) above? If it
      is Luke's habit, when faced with an overlap or redundancy in his sources, to
      choose one version and ignore the other, how do we know that Luke *always*
      chose the Q version? You have criteria that identify *when* Luke chooses
      the Q version, but how de we know that these are not the minority of cases
      and that Luke more often preferred the
      Markan version?

      "The reason I ask is that, in the traditionally defined Mark-Q overlap
      passages in Luke, there are minor agreements between Luke and Mark that are
      explained as Luke's reminiscences of Mark when he is primarily following Q.
      If Luke has reminiscences of one of his sources when he's primarily
      following the other, might not minor agreements between Matthew and Luke in
      the triple tradition be explained as Lucan reminiscences of Q when he is
      primarily following Mark?"

      What Dr. Olson proposes is logically possible. The most obvious example of
      what he suggest are Luke 3:21-22, where there a several MAs: ANOIGW vs.
      SCHIZW; EP' AUTON vs EIS AUTON and some general agreements in grammar.
      Moreover, Luke appears to be influenced mainly by Mark in the framing of the
      divine voice (unless we read,as Harnack did, with Beza). Luke 3:21-22 has in
      fact been included in a number of Q reconstructions, including the new
      Critical Edition of Q (Leuven: Peeters-Minneapolis: Fortress 2000) (where my
      dissent was in the minority). The same might go for Luke 10:25-28, Mark
      4:10-11, and several other texts.

      As a general comment, I think that the MA phenomenon is a very complex one
      that will not admit of a single type of account on the 2DH. As is well
      known, many types of resolutions have been proposed, some recensional (Ur-
      and Deutero-Markus); some redactional; some involving Q or other non-Markan
      sources; and some text-critical. Although it would be lovely if one solution
      worked consistently, I do not believe that this is the case. A text critical
      solution to the MA at Mark 14:65, for example, is strained and a
      coincidental redaction solution stretches my view of coincidence. On the
      other hand, I think that a redactional solution works perfectly well at Mark
      1:9-11/Luke 3:21-22.

      Hence, I would certainly not treat *all* MAs alike, but I would grant that
      some of the MA might admit of the solution Dr. Olson suggests (for example,
      PERIXWROS TOU IORDANOU at Luke 3:3 and par.). But as for the MA in, for
      example, Markan miracle stories or the Passion narrative, I would be
      extremely hesitant to adopt this sort of solution. If I were to come up with
      some criteria by which to assess MA pericopae, I guess that I'd propose an
      adaptation of Vassliladis' criteria for Sondergut: we might be justified in
      extending Q to include triple tradition materials with MAs (a) which are
      components of texts already assigned to Q, (b) which are stylistically
      coherent with other Q materials, and (c) where other means of accounting for
      the MAs seem implausible. Such a set of criteria is not going to end up
      including many of the MA pericopae that have not already been considered.



      This is the _Excavating Q_ Seminar (Oct. 23 -- Nov. 10 2000).
      Please send your messages to Synoptic-S@...
      Please send all other correspondence to Synoptic-S-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.