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

Excavating or merely digging a hole?

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    (a) Kloppenborg (2000) concludes that the original Q was written in Greek. But a very early Greek document containing sayings of a teacher who, with his
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 19, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      (a) Kloppenborg (2000) concludes that the original Q was written in Greek.
      But a very early Greek document containing sayings of a teacher who, with
      his original followers, probably all spoke Aramaic, is utterly incongruous.

      (b) Fleddermann (2005), who claims that Mark knew Q, assesses the date of Q
      as ca. 75 CE.. But this leads one to wonder what triggered the writing of
      Mark's gospel if it was not the dramatic war culminating in the fall of
      Jerusalem, a link so brilliantly portrayed by Brandon and supported by many
      critical scholars.

      (c) Allison (1997) has a "Q1" containing Q 10:21-24 (the 'Johannine
      thunderbolt') which he claims probably appeared in the 30s. This is beyond
      belief given any reasonable trajectory of the development of sayings
      attributed to Jesus. Indeed the Matthean style of the saying prompted
      Michael Goulder to write: "Those who defend Q have a Q apparently edited by
      Matthew".

      (d) Tuckett's digging (1996) exposes the problems of Q, most starkly the
      contradictory pointers towards a community for whom gentiles were outsiders,
      useful only as illustrative heroes/villains, and a mission to gentiles on
      the other. In synoptic gospels with multiple sources, and authors who out of
      respect for an early source sometimes included material with which they did
      not entirely agree, this is quite credible. But in a supposedly earlier
      coherent source these attitudes simply could not have co-existed.

      If those who analyse Q in depth end up with such incongruous conclusions,
      doesn't it indicate a serious problem with the hypothesis of Q?

      - - - - - - -

      The radical 3ST solves these problems, and without throwing out the baby
      with the bath water!

      (a) The reconstructed logia was originally almost certainly written in
      Aramaic.
      (b) It was written ca. 45 CE, around 25 years before Mark's gospel.
      (c) It did not contain the 'Johannine thunderbolt'.
      (d) Nor did it contain Mt 11:20-23 // Lk 10:13-15 or Mt 8:11-12 // Lk
      13:28-29 or Mt 8:5-10,13 // Lk 7:1-10, which are arguably the primary
      indications of a gentile mission associated with Q. However in addition to Q
      6:34 & Q 12:30 it *did* contain three other examples of the gentiles as
      outsiders which would resolve Tuckett's dilemma in the opposite direction.

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.