Excavating or merely digging a hole?
- (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
(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
(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
(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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]