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

Kloppenborg vs. Fleddermann

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Having now studied Fleddermann s Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary , I can provide at least a preliminary appraisal, with particular reference to the
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 27, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Having now studied Fleddermann's "Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary", I can
      provide at least a preliminary appraisal, with particular reference to the
      differences between his conclusions and those of Kloppenborg et al..

      From my perspective, the major points in favour of Fleddermann are:
      (1) He has worked out that Mark made use of the sayings source.
      (2) He has worked out that GTh is dependent on the synoptics, and therefore
      irrelevant for reconstructing the sayings source.
      (3) He rejects stratigraphic analysis.
      (4) He rejects the idea of Q recensions (Q-Mt and Q-Lk).

      Also in a few minor details (so far I've found ten) he supports my
      Web-published reconstruction of the logia, as opposed to that of the
      Critical Edition of Q.

      On the negative side:
      (1) He has the idealistic (and unimaginative) idea that Matthew and Luke
      both contain the whole of the original sayings source.
      (2) He proposes a structure of Q which is claimed to be so complete that
      there is no room for any 'Sondergut' sayings. But what sort of structure has
      "The Adversaries" and "The Disciples" as main sections, but also as
      sub-sections within the main section "The Future Kingdom"? It looks to me
      like a muddled structure. Fleddermann and his predecessors in this quest are
      to find unity where there is none.
      (3) The lack of earlier layers forces him into dating Q rather late, ca. 75
      CE. Thus he would hardly be able to claim that the publication of Mark
      (supposed user of Q) was prompted by the Jewish revolt and the sack of
      Jerusalem in 70 CE.
      (4) He appears to evade altogether the main criticism usually levelled at
      those who claim Mark depended on the sayings source, i.e. if so why did Mark
      omit so much of it? (I suspect that he is afraid to draw attention to Mark's
      many omissions because this would tend to weigh against his claim that
      neither Matthew nor Mark omitted even a single saying.)

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      Ron wrote of Fleddermann: (4) He appears to evade altogether the main criticism usually levelled at those who claim Mark depended on the sayings source, i.e.
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 28, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron wrote of Fleddermann:
        (4) He appears to evade altogether the main criticism usually levelled at
        those who claim Mark depended on the sayings source, i.e. if so why did Mark
        omit so much of it? (I suspect that he is afraid to draw attention to Mark's
        many omissions because this would tend to weigh against his claim that
        neither Matthew nor Mark omitted even a single saying.)

        Leonard: you mean, I think: "...this would tend to weigh against his claim that neither Matthew nor Luke omitted even a single saying."

        Even more to be feared, of course, would be the conclusion that -- if Mark can have omitted so much from Q, may there not loom the terrifying specter of a 2GH Mark, who did the same with Matthew and Luke?

        Leonard Maluf
        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
        Weston, MA
        ________________________________________________________________________
        Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ron Price
        ... Leonard, Yes, I meant neither Matthew nor Luke . ... Nice try, Leonard. But I doubt whether Fleddermann loses any sleep over the 2GH. For most of Mark s
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 29, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I wrote:

          >> (I suspect that he is afraid to draw attention to Mark's
          >> many omissions because this would tend to weigh against his claim that
          >> neither Matthew nor Mark omitted even a single saying.)

          Leonard Maluf replied:

          > you mean, I think: "...this would tend to weigh against his claim
          > that neither Matthew nor Luke omitted even a single saying."

          Leonard,

          Yes, I meant "neither Matthew nor Luke".

          > Even more to be feared, of course, would be the conclusion that -- if Mark can
          > have omitted so much from Q, may there not loom the terrifying specter of a
          > 2GH Mark, who did the same with Matthew and Luke?

          Nice try, Leonard.

          But I doubt whether Fleddermann loses any sleep over the 2GH.

          For most of Mark's omissions from the early sayings source there is a ready
          explanation. Also his omissions leave more room for his own imaginative
          contributions to the gospel. On the 2GH, Mark's contributions are so few
          that it's difficult to see why he would have bothered. Hadn't Luke (on your
          hypothesis) already omitted some of the most pointedly pro-Jewish sayings
          (Mt 7:6; 10:5,23), presented a Samaritan as better than Jews (Lk 10:29-37)
          extended the genealogy back to Adam, and presented a gospel suitable for
          Gentiles?

          Mark would have been superfluous had it not been the foundation for Matthew
          and Luke, as the relative unpopularity of Mark in the early centuries surely
          indicates.

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          Ron Price wrote: Mark would have been superfluous had it not been the foundation for Matthew and Luke, as the relative unpopularity of Mark in the early
          Message 4 of 5 , Nov 30, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Ron Price wrote:
            Mark would have been superfluous had it not been the foundation for Matthew
            and Luke, as the relative unpopularity of Mark in the early centuries surely
            indicates.

            Leonard: The judgment about the "relative unpopularity of Mark" in the early centuries is based largely on the literary remains of those centuries. But surely, in literary circles, the more literary Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John continued, as ever, to be more used and esteemed than Mark, as they had always been. Where it was known, Mark's popularized and dramatized Gospel was probably more genuinely "popular" than other Gospels (when it finally came along), meaning that it likely was a favorite among people who did not leave much evidence to posterity because they did not write books.

            Your logic here also leaves unexplained why the enormous (relative) popularity of Mark in, say, the 20th century, in spite of the existence of Matthew and Luke. I suspect I know how you would respond to this, namely, that it is principally the new knowledge of Markan priority that has given Mark's gospel such a boost in popularity in the last couple of centuries. But I doubt that Mark's priority would have escaped being known in the early centuries, had it been a fact, or that a knowledge of its priority would have had any less impact on its popularity back then than the assumption of its priority has today.

            Leonard Maluf
            Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
            Weston, MA


            ________________________________________________________________________
            Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • gentile_dave@emc.com
            Leonard wrote: But I doubt that Mark s priority would have escaped being known in the early centuries, had it been a fact. Dave: This is a reasonable question.
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 1, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Leonard wrote: But I doubt that Mark's priority would have escaped being
              known in the early centuries, had it been a fact.



              Dave: This is a reasonable question. If Mark is first, why does
              tradition say Matthew was first?



              I have a proposal, which I discussed at some length with Ron Price, and
              mentioned briefly here.

              The idea is that there was a saying source, but it was a forgery by the
              author of the gospel of Matthew, in order to justify his expansion of
              Mark.



              So first we have the gospel of Mark, maybe developed in stages, but
              already well established by the time the gospel of Matthew comes along.
              In order to justify expanding the gospel of Mark, the author of Matthew
              forges a "saying source" and claims it to be actual words of Jesus
              recorded by the disciple Matthew. The author of the gospel of Matthew
              then uses this "saying-source" to "correct" and update Mark.



              Luke is then taken in by the saying-source forgery, but recognizes the
              gospel of Matthew as contemporary. Luke makes his own gospel, using Mark
              and the "saying-source", with only occasional reference to Matthew.



              Future generations (including Pappias), are also taken in by the
              forgery, and thus credit Matthew (or at least Mathew's LOGIA) as being
              first, and Mark's gospel as being second. If this hypothesis is correct,
              it would answer Leonard's question - "If Mark is first, why does
              tradition say Matthew was first?" Of course, I realize Leonard has a
              different answer in mind.



              In discussion with Ron, I came to realize that there is very little that
              can separate his idea from mine. We did come up with some ideas for
              detailed work that could be done, and reviewing Fleddermann work, from
              the perspective of my hypothesis and his, was one of those ideas.
              However, I have not had time to pursue that yet, beyond some preliminary
              work. So, as it stands, my personal assessment currently places Ron's
              idea and mine on almost equal footing. They both correctly describe many
              points (in my opinion), and where detailed work could be done to
              separate them, I've not done anything more than begin that process. But,
              currently I know of nothing that seems to eliminate either hypothesis
              from consideration.



              Here is my current draft

              http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/Q_forgery.html

              which just represents where I left off in the process. But comments on
              the project thus far are welcome.



              Thanks,



              Dave Gentile

              Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

              B.S./M.S. Physics

              M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)

              Riverside, IL





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