916Re: [Synoptic-L] Testing the 3ST
- Dec 15, 2007To: Synoptic
In Response To: Ron
RON: Somewhere along the line I obviously didn't make myself clear enough.
My proposal is that the xQ material (xQ is shorthand for ex-Q, i.e. taken
out of Q) does *not* come from the logia, but originates with Matthew.
BRUCE: Still not clear, and to me, still enigmatic terminologically. If xQ
means "out of Q" (rather than out of the "logia") then how exactly can it
"originate with Matthew?" Do we have an equation xQ = xM?
This most recent comment might be construed as meaning that there is a Q
somewhere in the 3ST. But that is evidently not the case; the non-Synoptic
source in the 3ST is apparently supposed to overlap with Q as conventionally
understood, but to be smaller (and also to include material NOT usually
assigned to Q). I have gone again to the web page, and there I read:
"On the previous page I proposed that the early collection of Jesus' sayings
was roughly a subset of Q as normally understood, and labelled it "sQ",
meaning '(pure) sayings-Q'. In this theory the author of Matthew's gospel
(hereafter "Au_Matt") used two written sources: sQ and Mark, and the author
of Luke's gospel (hereafter "Au_Luke") used three written sources: sQ, Mark
and Matthew. I argued that Au_Luke took from Matthew some of the material
usually allocated to Q. This included the following pericopae: Mt 3:7-12;
4:1-11; 8:5-13; 11:2-19; 20-23; 25-27; 12:22-29,31-32; 43-45; 22:1-10;
23:37-39; 24:45-51; 25:14-28,30.  The remaining double tradition material
is assigned to sQ. "
One way to understand this is to assume that sQ (the revised, smaller Q) +
xQ (material formerly, but not in the 3ST, allocated to Q) = Q. That is, the
conventional Q is being divided into Matthean original material and stuff
that really IS in an outside written source. We might then gloss
sQ = "still in Q"
xQ = "taken out of Q; not in an outside source used by aMt"
If this is correct, then as earlier suggested, I think other labels would be
better; say A and M. "Q" is a letter which, at this hour of the day, is very
hard to control, at least with the wider readership. The phrase "out of"
also seems to be a problem; it does not always seem to have the meaning
which a horse breeder would assign to it. It seems to be doing duty for "in"
as well as "not in," which is perhaps unlikely to advance understanding. Why
not pick another?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>