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

Re: Q

Expand Messages
  • Nicholas Wynder
    ... I wrote that message before I looked at your web site.Thank you for clarifing some things for me ... See the original message at
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 3, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      On 2 Dec 98 at 15:54, Nicholas Wynder wrote:
      > >
      > > > How does the scholarly community feal about the recent advances in Q? As I
      > > > understand it the first layer of Q1 is primarily concerned with Jesus as a
      > > > wisdom teacher, Jesus as a divine was not added later until Q3.If my
      > > > understanding is correct then the first communities thought of Jesus as a
      > > > wisdom teacher,which in turn adds to the theory of Jesus as a cynic
      > > > philosopher.
      > >
      > > I think that you need to be careful to distinguish the following:
      > >
      > > (1) Does Q exist as a document? In other words, is it necessary to hypothesise
      > > this document at all if there are other plausible explanations for the double
      > > tradition material? On this issue, see my web materials on Q at
      > > http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q.
      > >
      > > (2) If it exists, can it be stratified? The literary stratigraphy
      > > of Q has been one of the key contributions made to Q scholarship by John
      > > Kloppenborg. His broad results are accepted by many Q scholars.
      > >
      > > (3) Kloppenborg's stratigraphy is not, however, going unopposed. It is not so
      > > broadly accepted in British scholarship (which also tends to be more sceptical
      > > of the existence of Q) and one of its most cogent critics is Christopher
      > > Tuckett -- see his recent _Q and the History of Early Christianity_ (Edinburgh:
      > > T & T Clark, 1996). Two important critiques have also been mounted from the
      > > States and Canada more recently:
      > >
      > > (a) Dale Allison, _The Jesus Tradition in Q_ (forgotten the publsiher, 1997)
      > > criticises Kloppenborg and proposes its own composition history of the
      > > document.
      > >
      > > (b) Alan Kirk, _The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Sychrony and
      > > Wisdom Redaction in Q_ (Leiden: Brill, 1998). Kirk rejects stratigraphy
      > > altogether and proposes a synchronic analysis of Q, attempting to make sense of
      > > the document from the point of view of similar ancient genres. The book is all
      > > the more interesting in that Kirk is a former student of Kloppenborg.
      > >
      > > (4) Even if one accepts a Kloppenborg-type stratigraphic analysis of Q, one
      > > should proceed with care in the attempt to attribute different stages in the
      > > proposed composition to different stages in the proposed history of early
      > > Christianity. This is arguably one of the difficulties in Crossan's wholesale
      > > appropriation of Kloppenborg's separation of elements into Q1 and Q2. There is
      > > a fine article dealing with the relation of stratigraphy to historical Jesus
      > > research is John Kloppenborg, "The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the
      > > Historical Jesus" (_HTR_ 89:4, October 1996, pp. 307-44; with responses by
      > > Helmut Koester, pp. 345-9, and Ron Cameron, pp. 351-4).
      > >
      > > (5) One should be wary of speaking about the strata in Q as representing Jesus
      > > in a certain way ("as a wisdom teacher", "as a divine" etc.). Kloppenborg's
      > > stratigraphy has more to do with genre than with depiction of Jesus, i.e. it is
      > > about wisdom teaching as a genre rather than "wisdom teacher" as a
      > > characterisation of Jesus.
      > >
      > > (6) I suspect that for the summary above you are partly dependent on Burton L.
      > > Mack, who follows Kloppenborg in assigning the Temptation to the third stratum
      > > (Q3), but one should be aware of others, like Tuckett, who would see the themes
      > > of the Temptation narrative as setting up much of what is to come later in Q.
      > >
      > > Hope that this little sketch helps a little.
      > >
      > > Mark
      > > --------------------------------------
      > > Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      > > Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham
      > >
      > > Recommended New Testament Web Resources:
      > > http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/links.htm
      > > World Without Q:
      > > http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q
      > > Homepage:
      > > http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      > >
      > >
      > So the stratigraphy is not universal? Since Matthew and Luke contain double tradition material would it not be a obvious assumption that it did once exist.Also since some of the material appears in Thomas would that not some how intimate at its use during the early Jesus traditions.
      >
      >
      > -----
      > See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/crosstalk/?start=3866
      >
      >

      I wrote that message before I looked at your web site.Thank you for clarifing some things for me

      -----
      See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/crosstalk/?start=3887
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.