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

[Excavating-Q] Response to Michael Goulder

Expand Messages
  • J. S. Kloppenborg
    To Michael Goulder: Michael raises questions having more to do with the IQP than with ExQ, though I touch on issues of reconstruction in the second chapter of
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 25, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      To Michael Goulder:

      Michael raises questions having more to do with the IQP than
      with ExQ, though I touch on issues of reconstruction in the
      second chapter of ExQ. Moreover, Robert Derrenbacker and I
      have a detailed response to Michael's "Self Contradiction in
      the IQP" that will appear in JBL in the next few months, so I
      will not try to rehash our argument here.

      But I do take issue with Michael's assertion that the IQP
      "assumes that Q's style and Matthew's style were different."
      As a generalization this is untrue, both insofar as it describes
      an *assumption* of the IQP and insofar as it describes the
      *results*. Sometimes the IQP reconstructs with Matthew,
      sometimes with Luke, sometimes it is undecided because
      both Matt and Luke seem to be redactional.

      Second, Michael rightly points out that in the QC words there
      are phrases that Matthew uses elsewhere (redactionally):
      oligopistoi, weeping and gnashing of teeth, brood of vipers,
      etc. These data might be explained in several ways: (a) they
      are Matthaeanisms that found their way also into Luke (on the
      Farrer Goulder hypothesis [FGH] (or should we now call it the
      FGGH? ;-) (b) they are Matthew-pleasing Q words (so the
      2DH); (c) they are Matthew-pleasing Luke words (Jerusalem
      hypothesis). I don't see anything inevitable about your
      conclusion, Michael, from these data. As the Derrenbacker-
      Kloppenborg article points out, there are also "Lukanism" in
      Matthew, or Luke-pleasing Q words among the QC stuff: here I
      have in mind gender-pairing or "kingdom of God" (attested in
      Matthew 5x, but overwhelmed by Matthew's kingdom of the
      heavens), found in QC, Mark, and Luke.

      Hence, as I see the data, Q is like both Matthew and Luke in
      some respects, and, as the article indicates, also distinctive
      in interesting respects. Just what I'd expect to be the case if
      Matthew and Luke independently used a source document.

      best wishes, Michael; I know that this won't be the last word!!

      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.