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

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

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    Stephen, Just a quick question... why do you buy this requirement? Gordon
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 2, 2003
      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 2 of 16 , Feb 3, 2003
        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 3 of 16 , Feb 3, 2003
          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 4 of 16 , Feb 3, 2003
            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 5 of 16 , Feb 3, 2003
              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 6 of 16 , Feb 3, 2003
                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 7 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                  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 8 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                    >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 9 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                      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 10 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                        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 11 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                          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 12 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                            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 13 of 16 , Feb 4, 2003
                              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 14 of 16 , Feb 5, 2003
                                >
                                >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.