3627RE: [Synoptic-L] The beginning of Q
- Aug 1, 2011To: Synoptic (GPG)
In Response To: Ron Price / On: Beginning of Q
Ron considers that certain difficultly answerable questions with Q are
solved by either the FH or his own 3ST. And they are. I would like to point
out, from the margin as it were, that they are also solved by the ETH (or
Luke A/B) approach. Herewith my answers to Ron's questions.
RON: 1. Exactly how did Q begin? / BRUCE: as an idea in the minds of
scholars, going back to Weisse (1838), but most simply expressed by Harnack,
to account for (a) common material in Mt/Lk but not in Mk, plus (b)
bidirectionality of that material. Q never actually existed, and so has no
beginning in real time.
RON: 2. Why was so much space devoted to JnB ? (c.f. Tuckett, Q, p.109) /
BRUCE: Matthew had expanded the JohnB treatment in Mk to include some of
JB's preaching, in which he makes JB target the same people Jesus targeted,
namely the Pharisees. This increased the compatibility of John/Jesus, and
solved a problem then concerning believers: Was Jesus either a mere TA for
John, or on the other hand, was he a rebel? Neither answer was comfortable.
That Jesus was in this area continuous with John, and simply carried on his
teaching (vis-à-vis Pharisees) after John's incapacitation, solved one of
the problems. The rest, the originality of Jesus, was left for the rest of
the text to handle. Luke, noticing this extension in Matthew, added it to
his own text, but then further extended the John sermon to revisit some
economic issues very close to the center of his theology. This answer can
also be framed (and has been framed) in terms of FH. No specific advantage
here, either way. All the Mt > Lk subset of the Mt/Lk common passages can
be, and have been, handled this way. It is the Mt < Lk subset that cause the
problem for FH.
RON: 3. Who was the target of the "You brood of vipers" insult? / BRUCE:
Pharisees; see above.
RON: 4. Would "If you are the Son of God ..." in Mt 4:3 have made proper
sense in a Q without a prior declaration of Jesus' sonship (c.f. Mt 3:17)? /
BRUCE: Presumably not. We can take the Matthean temptation as based on the
Markan baptism. But my own guess is that Matthew is here going in a
different direction from that implied in Mark (in Mark, the temptation looks
like a period of spiritual austerity; notice how Jesus prays during the rest
of Mark), and veering off toward his Jerusalemization interest. Luke B,
coming later and again taking over this new matter, agreed, but reversed two
of Matthew's Temptations so as to make Jerusalem climactic, thus further
reinforcing the Jerusalemization scenario. Again, this explanation does not
contradict or refute FH.
I very much agree with Ron that the JohnB material in the Mt/Lk set is a
problem for the usual scenario for Q. So are the respective Birth Narratives
(sparse in Mt, gaudily rewritten and rechoreographed in Lk). So is a lot of
stuff. As for things that are problematic for FH, these are the Lk > Mt
subset of the material. I have given several specimens in earlier notes, and
won't here repeat.
E Bruce Brooks
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>