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

[Excavating-Q] Response to Stephen Carlson

Expand Messages
  • John Kloppenborg
    First of all, I would like to thank Stephen (if I may) for his kind words on ExQ. I did spend a lot of time on chap. 6 on the history of the SynProb, most
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 24, 2000
      First of all, I would like to thank Stephen (if I may) for his kind words on
      ExQ. I did spend a lot of time on chap. 6 on the history of the SynProb,
      most freezing in the basement of the Ecole biblique one winter along with
      other polar inmates.

      I would also like to wish Michael Goulder, who had a bad fall yesterday, a
      very speedy and complete recovery.

      Stephen Carlson inquires about a comment that I had made in THE SHAPE OF Q
      to the effect that "Evidence of design and deliberate structure serves not
      only to expose the distinctive theology of Q; it turns out to be relevant to
      a yet more basic issue, that of the very existence of Q. . . . For it is
      exceedingly unlikely that a subset of materials mechanically abstracted from
      two Gospels would display an inherent genre and structure unless in fact
      that subset substantially represented a discrete and independent document."
      (p. 2)

      He wonders, rightly, why I made rather less of this type of argument in ExQ.

      Let me begin by saying that in the construction of chap. 1, on the Synoptic
      Problem, I was most concerned to treat the Synoptic Problem with care and
      pare down the argument to its logical essentials. Thus I distinguished
      between two types of data and arguments: (1) the phenomona of the patterns
      of agreements and disagreements among the synoptics, both in wording and in
      sequence, and the *logically possible* inferences that these permit
      (essentially: the medial position of Mark); and (2) the editorial
      plausiblity of one direction of dependence over another. The first types of
      argument are logically much stronger than the second, but permit several
      mutually exclusive solutions. The second set of arguments are what Synoptic
      Problem arguements are less conclusive, since what it plausible to one
      critic is not so to another.

      The comments made in SHAPE I regard as a third, corroborative type of
      obsveration, not a strong primary argument. To have a synoptic solution
      result in the positing of a set of materials that in fact has thematic unity
      or an identifiable genre or whatever is the kind of result that corroborates
      (but does not prove) the solution. It is the sort of result that one would
      like to have -- rather like Fortna's Signs' Gospel in fact displaying a
      stylistic unity when tested against Ruckstuhl's and Schweizer's stylistic
      criteria, when his (Fortna's) source delineation did not in fact employ
      stylistic criteria in order to effect the source division.

      I might have made some observations at the end of chap. 1along the lines you
      suggest, but they would have been framed only as secondary and
      corroborative. I did comment in chap. 2 (in the section dealing with
      Bergemann, pp. 66-72) that the double tradition in fact displays structure
      and thematic unities that tell against it being a collection of small
      documents, and as you rightly note, more briefly on pp. 163-4.

      I have made rather more of this argument in the forthcoming response to
      Michael Goulder's SELF CONTRADICTION (in JBL sometime before the next
      millenium), but you're quite right to suggest that I could have said more
      explictly either at the end of the SynProb chapter, or pp. 118-122 where I
      discuss major structural features in Q, or at the end of chap. 2. (second
      edition, perhaps?)


      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.