Query on Q
- To: Synoptic
The proprietors of the Synoptic list seem to agree one way or another
(sometimes from a Griesbachian perspective) that the positing of a Q is not
necessary in order to account for the observed literary relations among the
Synoptic Gospels. The root question at issue would then seem to be the
directionality of the Mark/Matthew relationship.
There are however presumably people on the list who have given reflective
attention to the Griesbachian and also the Farrer rejoinders to Q, and find
that a hypothesis containing Q is still the best way to account for those
relationships. Having been looking over some of the literature on the
question from the last twenty-five years, and noting that there is a
considerable spread of "definitive" arguments, I would be interested in
hearing from a few of those reflective Q adherents, what they regard as the
definitive text-internal arguments for Q? (I mean to exclude such aspects as
the Papias external testimony).
Any responses appreciated. It is not required that they agree among
themselves; I just want to get some idea about which of the many viewpoints
brought forward in recent decades still command respect among thoughtful
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
- Ron and Leonard,
I think that we need to be careful and nuanced when we refer to Mt's "Jewishness" as a gospel. It is a subversive if not heretical tract against Judaism, made much more powerful by being written from an insider's (a Jewish) point of view.
It begins with Herod, the Jewish king, as the new Pharoah trying to kill the baby. Pagan astrologers worship while Jerusalem scribes use their biblical knowledge to aid the murder plot. Jesus, the New Moses, has to escape *into* Egypt!
Then the very first block of teaching, delivered on a Mount, has Jesus saying "you've have heard it said [in the Law--even in the Ten Commandments!]...but I say to you."
Gentiles are noble and Jews the enemies of God throughout the book. And Mt's Great commision concludes with "go therefore and teach all nations (ta ethne--the Gentiles)."
It is as if someone wrote a tract quoting the founding fathers and constitution, using traditional American patriotic and political language, etc., but as an apologetic for the rightness of Al Quada.
All of this suggests the timing of Mt's book should be tied to a community situation in which the split between Jew and Xn is profound, maybe nearly complete. Mt makes the argument that the split happened because historial Israel missed the point (as they had always done). So I'm not sure we can argue an early date from Mt's "Jewishness."
By the way, Lk makes the same point in a different way. Mk, however, does not seem to have a particular bone to pick with the Jews.
Rev. Chuck Jones
Leonard Maluf wrote:
> I like the logic here. But let me show you what else it yields: In.
> both language and outlook, Mark is clearly aimed at a Gentile audience,
> whereas Matthew has much stronger ties with Judaism. Christianity was born out
> of Judaism, therefore it is very unlikely that Matthew made use of Mark.
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]