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

What Luke Had to Work With/Against (was: Re: [XTalk] Re: Dating Luke/Acts)

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    Hi Ken, I m one of those folks who think that Luke-Acts is from circa 110 to 120. I do think he had access to Q, an early parable collection (part of what
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 2, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Ken,

      I'm one of those folks who think that Luke-Acts is from circa 110 to 120. I
      do think he had access to Q, an early parable collection (part of what gets
      called Special L), Mark, Matthew, John... and the question is... how many
      other lost Gospels. At last count we now know of some 34 gospels (Charles
      Hedrick did an article in "Bible Review" this past year). Many of those are
      late as gospelling writing seemed quite the thing to do in the first three
      centuries. The interesting thing to wonder about in relationship to this
      "many" is just "how many" that was??? Hope some more get dug up!

      As for knowing G.John, I think **part of the reason** "Luke" wrote was to
      favor the basic story pattern of Mark and Matthew over that of G.John. As
      John was the growing darling of Gnosticizing folks, Luke-Acts **in part**
      represents "a standardization" of the kerygmatic story... Luke following it
      and Acts putting the seal on it, so to speak. In my view, this was a
      secondary factor... the prime being fully organizing the kerymatic
      foundations with "the new center," with "the baptismal credo," with "the
      episcopal polity," and with all of this... establishing in the empire that
      this was movement was not one of those new fangled superstitions, but rather
      legitimately rooted in the Hebraic heritage (a venerable old religion) and a
      sophisticated religion fit for citizens of the empire. What we know now
      from the 34 is that gospel writing could go in all sorts of directions. To
      put it bluntly... from the Roman perspective... looking at these stories one
      could easily conclude that "this was just a silly new myth as this religion
      can't get its story straight." This "more orderly account" did the trick!

      Gordon Raynal
      Inman, SC
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Since the modern case for Q requires Luke s ignorance of Matthew, I wonder what new or different argument you have for the existence of Q if you think that
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 2, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        At 08:23 AM 2/2/03 -0500, Gordon Raynal wrote:
        >I'm one of those folks who think that Luke-Acts is from circa 110 to 120. I
        >do think he had access to Q, an early parable collection (part of what gets
        >called Special L), Mark, Matthew, John... and the question is... how many
        >other lost Gospels.

        Since the modern case for Q requires Luke's ignorance of Matthew,
        I wonder what new or different argument you have for the existence
        of Q if you think that Luke knew Matthew, too.

        Thanks to Ken Olson, for pointing out an inconsistency in the
        position of a late Luke and the existence of Q on the part of
        the Jesus Seminar. But then, Ken Arrow has proven that, under
        certain circumstances, no committee voting system can achieve
        consistent results.

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
      • Gordon Raynal
        Stephen, Just a quick question... why do you buy this requirement? Gordon
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 2, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Stephen,

          Just a quick question... why do you buy this "requirement?"

          Gordon
        • Gordon Raynal
          Hi Stephen, You ll see my morning note to Mark. I m still interested in your views. I can t speak for my J.Sem friends individually or as a whole, but I
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 3, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Stephen,

            You'll see my morning note to Mark. I'm still interested in your views. I
            can't speak for my J.Sem friends individually or as a whole, but I don't
            think that there is inconsistency in a late Luke and the existence of Q.

            Gordon
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... The inconsistency lies in the fact that most of members of the Jesus Seminar, like most Biblical scholars frankly, do not specialize in source criticism.
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 3, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              At 08:16 AM 2/3/03 -0500, Gordon Raynal wrote:
              >You'll see my morning note to Mark. I'm still interested in your views. I
              >can't speak for my J.Sem friends individually or as a whole, but I don't
              >think that there is inconsistency in a late Luke and the existence of Q.

              The inconsistency lies in the fact that most of members of the Jesus
              Seminar, like most Biblical scholars frankly, do not specialize in
              source criticism. It is hard to appreciate that the Q hypothesis is
              not simply an assured result that one can simply build on as an
              established fact -- but a carefully reasoned conclusion that depends
              on a set of premises and assumptions.

              In particular, the existence of Q, as argued by its leading living
              theoreticians, depends on the extreme unlikelihood that Luke made
              use of Matthew. This premise depends on certain assumptions about
              the dates of Matthew and Luke. For example, if it can be shown
              that Matthew is an ancient work but Luke is a medieval work; simply
              by this date alone one would be extremely reluctant to deny any
              knowledge of Matthew by the author of such a medieval Luke and
              assert an otherwise unknown common source.

              Therefore, if Q is accepted, one is not free to redate the gospels
              willy-nilly but keep within the dating framework the Q hypothesis
              requires or re-establish the existence and extent of Q by fresh
              arguments and analysis. This has not been done. I would say that
              even if one were to find a common source behind Luke and Matthew in
              the context of Luke's use of Matthew, this common source would look
              very different from what we now understand to be Q.

              Dating isn't the only assumption the Q hypothesis requires. There
              is a whole host of other assumptions built into Q regarding the
              creativity of the evangelists, the insularity of Christian
              communities, etc. -- which, if made explicit, would make Q out to
              be a rather dated piece of 19th scholarship. I would argue that if
              Biblical scholarship were truly to be taken into the 21st century,
              Q would have to be discarded as the relic of an earlier age that
              we are now venerating.

              Stephen Carlson
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
              Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
            • Gordon Raynal
              Stephen, Thanks for your note. I am, of course, aware that it is a theoretical construct. As noted, I m not going to the whole legitimacy of Q scholarship
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 3, 2003
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Stephen,

                Thanks for your note. I am, of course, aware that it is a theoretical
                construct. As noted, I'm not going to the whole legitimacy of Q scholarship
                issue on the list. Be it enough to say I am more impressed with the work of
                Dom, Kloppenborg, the IQP, etc. than you are. And for the reasons I have
                outlined I think that this hypothetical construction is based in a written
                and redacted work. It is not veneration that is at issue, rather it is
                appreciating the work of the earliest community and a resource that gives
                voice to that time. Early Q, the wisdom gatherings in the charter in the
                Didache, the wisdom found in Ep. James... and even Paul's sometimes reliance
                on the core that is found in this material... and let us not forget early
                Thomas, give us a window on that era. As for working in terms of
                hypotheticals... such is not to be cast aside as if it is "just" a
                hypothesis. Much work in both testaments... from Torah, to the layers of
                Isaiah, to the wranglings over Jeremiah have depended on such work. But as
                Dom Crossan said once, a copy of Q could be dug up in Capernaum, dated to
                the first century by carbon dating, etc., and the dispute would not be
                settled. He's correct about that... and hence I appreciate your laying out
                your views, but we shall disagree.

                Gordon
              • Bob Schacht
                ... Actually, Gordon, it is not appreciating the work of the earliest community that is at issue, it is your desire to have your cake and eat it, too. You
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 3, 2003
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 11:29 PM 2/3/2003 -0500, Gordon wrote:
                  >Stephen,
                  >
                  >Thanks for your note. I am, of course, aware that it is a theoretical
                  >construct. As noted, I'm not going to the whole legitimacy of Q scholarship
                  >issue on the list. Be it enough to say I am more impressed with the work of
                  >Dom, Kloppenborg, the IQP, etc. than you are. And for the reasons I have
                  >outlined I think that this hypothetical construction is based in a written
                  >and redacted work. It is not veneration that is at issue, rather it is
                  >appreciating the work of the earliest community and a resource that gives
                  >voice to that time. ...

                  Actually, Gordon, it is not appreciating the work of the earliest community
                  that is at issue, it is your desire to have your cake and eat it, too. You
                  can't have it both ways. You can't have Luke using Matthew and also have a
                  Q, because then Q would have to be defined differently than it is now. So
                  the problem is not what Stephen thinks, it is in the logical
                  inconsistencies in what you think, which you seem unwilling to admit.

                  Bob Schacht

                  Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
                  Northern Arizona University
                  Flagstaff, AZ

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Stephen C. Carlson
                  ... My point is not so much on the legitimacy of Q but that if you accept Q, you must accept the premises and assumptions that undergird it. It is simply
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 3, 2003
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 11:29 PM 2/3/03 -0500, Gordon Raynal wrote:
                    >Thanks for your note. I am, of course, aware that it is a theoretical
                    >construct. As noted, I'm not going to the whole legitimacy of Q scholarship
                    >issue on the list. Be it enough to say I am more impressed with the work of
                    >Dom, Kloppenborg, the IQP, etc. than you are. And for the reasons I have
                    >outlined I think that this hypothetical construction is based in a written
                    >and redacted work. It is not veneration that is at issue, rather it is
                    >appreciating the work of the earliest community and a resource that gives
                    >voice to that time. Early Q, the wisdom gatherings in the charter in the
                    >Didache, the wisdom found in Ep. James... and even Paul's sometimes reliance
                    >on the core that is found in this material... and let us not forget early
                    >Thomas, give us a window on that era.

                    My point is not so much on the legitimacy of Q but that if you accept Q,
                    you must accept the premises and assumptions that undergird it. It is
                    simply inconsistent to hold one set of dating for Matthew and Luke and
                    yet accept a Q that requires another dating. It is not about appreciating
                    an alleged work of a community but making sure that one's assumptions are
                    not self-contradictory.

                    >As for working in terms of
                    >hypotheticals... such is not to be cast aside as if it is "just" a
                    >hypothesis. Much work in both testaments... from Torah, to the layers of
                    >Isaiah, to the wranglings over Jeremiah have depended on such work.

                    I have to wonder whether this is responding to me or to someone else.
                    My last message did not denigrate Q as "'just' a hypothesis" and I have
                    no philosophical objections to the existence of hypothetical texts.
                    Rather, I argued that if you accept a hypothesis you have to accept
                    all the assumptions that have gone into it.

                    My beef here with Q is not that it is hypothetical, but that it carries
                    with it a lot of baggage we might rather do without.

                    >But as
                    >Dom Crossan said once, a copy of Q could be dug up in Capernaum, dated to
                    >the first century by carbon dating, etc., and the dispute would not be
                    >settled. He's correct about that... and hence I appreciate your laying out
                    >your views, but we shall disagree.

                    Frankly, I think this comment attributed to Dom is terribly unfair to
                    Q skeptics, because it implies that they are not persuaded by evidence.

                    Stephen Carlson
                    --
                    Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                    Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                    "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                  • Loren Rosson
                    ... To lay my cards on the table, I predict exactly this. Whether it happens this decade or the next, the day will come when we look back on the Q industry in
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Stephen Carlson wrote:

                      > I would argue that if Biblical scholarship
                      > were truly to be taken into the 21st century,
                      > Q would have to be discarded as the relic of an
                      > earlier age that we are now venerating.

                      To lay my cards on the table, I predict exactly this.
                      Whether it happens this decade or the next, the day
                      will come when we look back on the Q industry in the
                      same way we view many ingredients of the Bultmannian
                      school of thought today.

                      Loren Rosson III
                      Nashua NH
                      rossoiii@...

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                      http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                    • Gordon Raynal
                      ... Bob, I ll leave your kindly assessments of logic and cake to you. But three questions: 1. How differently would you propose that Q would have to be
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >Actually, Gordon, it is not appreciating the work of the earliest community
                        >that is at issue, it is your desire to have your cake and eat it, too. You
                        >can't have it both ways. You can't have Luke using Matthew and also have a
                        >Q, because then Q would have to be defined differently than it is now. So
                        >the problem is not what Stephen thinks, it is in the logical
                        >inconsistencies in what you think, which you seem unwilling to admit.

                        Bob,
                        I'll leave your kindly assessments of "logic" and "cake" to you. But three
                        questions:
                        1. How "differently" would you propose that Q would have to be defined?
                        Would that core that is in Q1 be markedly different? Or is it a matter, as
                        you see it, of the shape of the whole document?
                        2. Does "use" for you imply "dependence?" Does showing it necessitate
                        showing some sort of precise borrowing? Or can "use" be understood in your
                        vocabulary as "having read" and choosing to go a different direction?
                        3. For the sake of argument, let us say that in "the many" that Luke is
                        aware of, he is aware of more than one sayings source, but not Matthew.
                        Would that for you, "logically" function to be an argument of the dismissal
                        of Q?

                        BTW... my "diet" for this construction of Jesus and the earliest folk is not
                        even dependent on Q.
                        Gordon
                      • Gordon Raynal
                        Stephen, As noted, I m not going to belabor this, nor get into logic and consistency arguments... but I will note two things... I argued that if you accept a
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Stephen,

                          As noted, I'm not going to belabor this, nor get into "logic and
                          consistency" arguments...
                          but I will note two things...

                          I argued that if you accept a hypothesis you have to accept
                          >all the assumptions that have gone into it.

                          "all?" I think not.
                          >
                          >My beef here with Q is not that it is hypothetical, but that it carries
                          >with it a lot of baggage we might rather do without.

                          What "baggage?" And though you and others "might rather do without," why so
                          troubled?

                          >Frankly, I think this comment attributed to Dom is terribly unfair to
                          >Q skeptics, because it implies that they are not persuaded by evidence.

                          We disagree, here. Q was so amicably talked about, even by many
                          conservative scholars that I know, until its study began to suggest that the
                          Jesus and the earliest members of the movement, might be different from the
                          traditional renderings. What I will note is that some scholars who avow the
                          predominant "apocalyptic prophet/ apocalyptic movement" defend Q. (I heard
                          it again at SBL this year by Allison and Horsely). I think Dom was being
                          honest.

                          Gordon
                        • Bob Schacht
                          ... Gordon, The issue is not how *I* would answer those questions, but how *you* would answer those questions, and if you can answer them in a rationally
                          Message 12 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 07:39 AM 2/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:

                            > >Actually, Gordon, it is not appreciating the work of the earliest community
                            > >that is at issue, it is your desire to have your cake and eat it, too. You
                            > >can't have it both ways. You can't have Luke using Matthew and also have a
                            > >Q, because then Q would have to be defined differently than it is now. So
                            > >the problem is not what Stephen thinks, it is in the logical
                            > >inconsistencies in what you think, which you seem unwilling to admit.
                            >
                            >Bob,
                            >I'll leave your kindly assessments of "logic" and "cake" to you. But three
                            >questions:
                            >1. How "differently" would you propose that Q would have to be defined?
                            >Would that core that is in Q1 be markedly different? Or is it a matter, as
                            >you see it, of the shape of the whole document?
                            >2. Does "use" for you imply "dependence?" Does showing it necessitate
                            >showing some sort of precise borrowing? Or can "use" be understood in your
                            >vocabulary as "having read" and choosing to go a different direction?
                            >3. For the sake of argument, let us say that in "the many" that Luke is
                            >aware of, he is aware of more than one sayings source, but not Matthew.
                            >Would that for you, "logically" function to be an argument of the dismissal
                            >of Q?
                            >
                            >BTW... my "diet" for this construction of Jesus and the earliest folk is not
                            >even dependent on Q.
                            >Gordon


                            Gordon,
                            The issue is not how *I* would answer those questions, but how *you* would
                            answer those questions, and if you can answer them in a rationally
                            consistent way that bears some resemblance to credible human activity.
                            Cheers,
                            Bob


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Stephen C. Carlson
                            ... But inconsistency in choosing one s assumptions was the entire point! It s clear you don t want to get into it, so I ll just let that point lie. ... And I
                            Message 13 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 07:51 AM 2/4/03 -0500, Gordon Raynal wrote:
                              >As noted, I'm not going to belabor this, nor get into "logic and
                              >consistency" arguments...

                              But inconsistency in choosing one's assumptions was the
                              entire point! It's clear you don't want to get into it,
                              so I'll just let that point lie.

                              >We disagree, here. Q was so amicably talked about, even by many
                              >conservative scholars that I know, until its study began to suggest that the
                              >Jesus and the earliest members of the movement, might be different from the
                              >traditional renderings. What I will note is that some scholars who avow the
                              >predominant "apocalyptic prophet/ apocalyptic movement" defend Q. (I heard
                              >it again at SBL this year by Allison and Horsely). I think Dom was being
                              >honest.

                              And I think that the comment was a cheap-shot.

                              Stephen Carlson
                              --
                              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                              Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                            • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
                              In a message dated 2/4/2003 6:06:41 PM Central Standard Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes: Gordon originally ... I looked up Crossan s statement, which he
                              Message 14 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 2/4/2003 6:06:41 PM Central Standard Time,
                                scarlson@... writes:

                                Gordon originally
                                > >We disagree, here. Q was so amicably talked about, even by many
                                > >conservative scholars that I know, until its study began to suggest that
                                > the
                                > >Jesus and the earliest members of the movement, might be different from
                                > the
                                > >traditional renderings. What I will note is that some scholars who avow
                                > the
                                > >predominant "apocalyptic prophet/ apocalyptic movement" defend Q. (I heard
                                > >it again at SBL this year by Allison and Horsely). I think Dom was being
                                > >honest.
                                >
                                > And I think that the comment was a cheap-shot.
                                >
                                > Stephen Carlson
                                >

                                I looked up Crossan's statement, which he makes with slightly different
                                wording in a couple of places. It's difficult for me to see that he implies
                                that Q critics are immune to evidence; rather he's saying that even if one
                                produced a copy of such a document it would not solve the questions of
                                whether or how the gospelers used it. Since almost everyone, Q critics
                                included, suppose that Matthew at least and probably both Matthew and Luke
                                had access to some sayings source, it seems quite a commonsensical attitude,
                                and insulting to no one.

                                Ed Tyler

                                http://hometown.aol.com/leeedgartyler/myhomepage/index.html



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Stephen C. Carlson
                                ... Then Crossan s statement was quoted out of its context. In this thread, the context was the existence of Q. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson
                                Message 15 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 07:26 PM 2/4/03 EST, LeeEdgarTyler@... wrote:
                                  >I looked up Crossan's statement, which he makes with slightly different
                                  >wording in a couple of places. It's difficult for me to see that he implies
                                  >that Q critics are immune to evidence; rather he's saying that even if one
                                  >produced a copy of such a document it would not solve the questions of
                                  >whether or how the gospelers used it. Since almost everyone, Q critics
                                  >included, suppose that Matthew at least and probably both Matthew and Luke
                                  >had access to some sayings source, it seems quite a commonsensical attitude,
                                  >and insulting to no one.

                                  Then Crossan's statement was quoted out of its context. In this thread,
                                  the context was the existence of Q.

                                  Stephen Carlson
                                  --
                                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                  Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                                • Gordon Raynal
                                  ... Stephen, an FYI note... Just to be clear, I wasn t taking this quote from Dom s writings, but from a conversation we had back in the 90 s. Our
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Feb 5, 2003
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    >
                                    >Then Crossan's statement was quoted out of its context. In this thread,
                                    >the context was the existence of Q.
                                    >
                                    >Stephen Carlson


                                    Stephen,

                                    an FYI note...

                                    Just to be clear, I wasn't taking this quote from Dom's writings, but from a
                                    conversation we had back in the 90's. Our conversation was about the
                                    existence of Q.

                                    Gordon
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.