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
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... Without presuming to answer for Stephen, my own answer would be to point out that it is not about whether or not one buys this requirement. The point is
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Gordon Raynal wrote:

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

      Without presuming to answer for Stephen, my own answer would be to
      point out that it is not about whether or not one "buys" this
      requirement. The point is that the grounds on which Q is postulated
      by its leading international defenders (Kloppenborg, Tuckett, etc.)
      are Markan Priority combined with the independence of Matthew and
      Luke. Given the existence of the double tradition, this requires the
      existence of the hypothetical entity named Q. If you argue in favour
      of Luke's use of Matthew, the key ground for the existence of Q -- at
      least as it is configured by the leading defenders today -- has gone.
      So the question for you would be why you still find Q to be
      necessary given that you think Luke has access to Matthew?

      Mark
      -----------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
      Birmingham B15 2TT UK

      http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
      http://NTGateway.com
    • Gordon Raynal
      ... Dating Luke/Acts) ... Hi Mark, How s the weather in England? Several things go together to make me accept Q as a document and I ll just state them briefly
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        ----------
        >From: "Mark Goodacre" <M.S.Goodacre@...>
        >To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: Re: What Luke Had to Work With/Against (was: Re: [XTalk] Re:
        Dating Luke/Acts)
        >Date: 3, Feb 2003, 5:11 AM
        >

        >Gordon Raynal wrote:
        >
        >> Stephen,
        >>
        >> Just a quick question... why do you buy this "requirement?"
        >
        >Without presuming to answer for Stephen, my own answer would be to
        >point out that it is not about whether or not one "buys" this
        >requirement. The point is that the grounds on which Q is postulated
        >by its leading international defenders (Kloppenborg, Tuckett, etc.)
        >are Markan Priority combined with the independence of Matthew and
        >Luke. Given the existence of the double tradition, this requires the
        >existence of the hypothetical entity named Q. If you argue in favour
        >of Luke's use of Matthew, the key ground for the existence of Q -- at
        >least as it is configured by the leading defenders today -- has gone.
        > So the question for you would be why you still find Q to be
        >necessary given that you think Luke has access to Matthew?

        Hi Mark,

        How's the weather in England?

        Several things go together to make me accept Q as a document and I'll just
        state them briefly sort of run the line of development I propose...

        1. Reaching back to the orality I think that the beginning of the
        remembrance is of the parables of Jesus and the times/ occasions he told
        them. And as for roots before that... the Hebraic past had a heritage of
        wisdom collections, of course... Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Jesus ben
        Sira!
        2. Related to this is the associated aphoristic speech. That speech has a
        coherence all its own. It has clear roots in the Hebraic heritage, yet its
        own unique stamp that connects to the religious, social, political
        circumstance of the era. And by my judgment is at the heart of the storied
        and speech development.
        3. And there is the Two Ways in the Didache. And there exists another
        written wisdom collection... Thomas, of course... that like Q shows clear
        signs of redaction from a basic collection of the parabolic and aphoristic
        speech. Q1 as a document has an integrity internally and related to the
        historical circumstance and to the content of the other collections of
        wisdom.

        and from there...
        4. Once we get to dear old Paul, even he will work from this wisdom heritage
        to talk about the meaning of the Cross and affirm in I Cor. 1:30 that the
        order for theological reflection of what has come from God in Jesus is first
        wisdom. Such as his "two ways" sort of summary and the sort that we see in
        James 3 suggest a basic dependence on these earlier collections.
        5. When we get to Mark after the war... he will say what he says about
        Jesus' speech in 4:33-4.
        6. Likewise Q itself is redacted.
        7. Matthew will utilize Mark and Q and his own sources and imagination...
        and insofar as the parabolic and aphoristic is concerned... he'll create
        some more parables and utilize Q to add to the aphorisms.
        8. The Didache's own development is apiece with the foundational charter
        that begins it.
        9. From Signs to John shows a form of gospelling that is rooted in a wisdom
        foundation and in its own form of midrash and story creation wherein the
        parabolic and aphoristic speech is now turned to "character speech" (Jesus
        as Wisdom's child). This suggests knowledge of a written collection... not
        just memory between 30 and the 90's!
        10. And to round out this little decalogue... I don't think Luke knowing
        Matthew kills off the existence of a Q document. I don't lose any sleep if
        Luke didn't know Matthew, but there's no reason at all to say an author
        can't have several original sources... in this case Q and Mark and Matthew
        (and how many other of those "many"???)... and do his own thing.

        Now... the question of limits of Q... as opposed to existence thereof? I do
        think the edges are a tad fuzzy once we get to Q3 especially. But Q1 to Q 2
        hold together nicely.

        Mark... as you are one of the certified champions of "No Q"... I'm sure such
        as this won't satisfy you, but my confidence is built not simply in terms of
        tight textual boundary arguments, but in relationship to the creativity of
        that earliest speech in relationship to the fit it has with the mission
        strategy and social produce of that strategy... all this in relationship to
        the historical circumstances of the late 20's... and then looking across the
        board at the productivity of writing in relation to historical developements
        and interpretative moves that follow. So... one final kicker to this. If
        you are right... no Q... I'll keep the rest of the above on the basis of the
        parables, an early edition of Thomas, the Two Ways, James 1-3, how Paul
        chooses to work over the cross and what Mark says about Jesus speech. I
        simply think that Matthew and Luke (and actually Paul! in relation to Q1)
        had access to a written document called.... something other than Q:)!... but
        that work... to work from.

        so how's that?

        Gordon
      • Brian Trafford <bj_traff@hotmail.com>
        I m afraid that I am with Ken Olson, Mark Goodacre and Stephen Carlson in that if Luke is shown to have known Matthew, then the game is up so far as Q is
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm afraid that I am with Ken Olson, Mark Goodacre and Stephen
          Carlson in that if Luke is shown to have known Matthew, then the game
          is up so far as Q is concerned. The entire logic behind positing the
          2DH in the first place has been the independence of Luke and Matthew,
          and it will hardly do to change the rules now that this presumed
          independence is becoming increasingly problematic to maintain.

          That said, I wanted to address a couple of Gordon's points here, so I
          hope he does not mind my borrowing from his response to Mark.

          --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon Raynal" <scudi1@c...>
          wrote:

          >1. Reaching back to the orality I think that the beginning of the
          >remembrance is of the parables of Jesus and the times/ occasions he
          >told them. And as for roots before that... the Hebraic past had a
          >heritage of wisdom collections, of course... Proverbs, the Wisdom of
          >Solomon, Jesus ben Sira!

          This is, at most, an argument for early sources, but it hardly
          necessitates positing any kind of recoverable written tradition (at
          least until we find an actual copy of such a thing!), especially
          since you specifically appeal to the "orality" of the early
          traditions. I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that such
          early oral traditions did exist, but do not see how or why we should
          expect this to lead us to accepting that these were preserved in some
          kind of early written format like Q1 (more on this below).

          >2. Related to this is the associated aphoristic speech. That speech
          >has a coherence all its own. It has clear roots in the Hebraic
          >heritage, yet its own unique stamp that connects to the religious,
          >social, political circumstance of the era. And by my judgment is at
          >the heart of the storied and speech development.

          If we are speaking of Q1 specifically here, even one of Q's greatest
          proponents would appear to disagree with you here. Forgive me for
          quoting in such length, but I believe the context of the statement is
          essential for understanding this point.

          From "Synoptic-S: the online _Excavating Q_ Seminar (Oct. 23-Nov. 10
          2000)" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Synoptic-S/message/4

          "(Christopher) Tuckett's second point is more serious (_Studies on Q:
          Aspects of the History of Early Christianity As Reflected in the
          Sayings Source Q_ p. 71): Q1 is not obviously a unity. This is
          clearly a weak point of the stratigraphic model, in Formation, all I
          could offer by way of defence is that there seemed to be a *formal*
          structural similarity among the Q1 bits: series of
          imperatives+butressing aphorisms, prefaced by programmatic opening
          sayings (Q 6:20-23; 9:58-62; 11:2-4; 12:2-3; 12:13-20?; 13:22-23) and
          finished by concluding warnings or perorations (6:47-49; 10:16; 12:11-
          12; 12:33-34; 14:34-35). It was only the observation that there was a
          general structural similarity that led me to suggest that we were
          dealing with an edited document rather than with miscellaneous pre-Q2
          tradition. Not a very substantial proof! In ExQ I've tried to expand
          that a bit, noting that there are logical connections among the Q1
          stuff (e.g., 11:2-4, 9-11 expressly treats of dependence on divine
          benificience, but 6:27-35 develops the allusions to debt-forgiveness
          mentioned in 11:2-4). This still isn't a very substantial argument
          for the literary unity of Q1, but it's all that I've got."
          J.S. Kloppenborg, posted October 24, 2000.

          The lack of a unity within Q1 is, for both Tuckett and Kloppenborg,
          obvious, and is indeed a great weakness in arguing for its
          composition as a coherent and/or written text. This does not prevent
          Kloppenborg for using Q1 as such, of course, but it raises serious
          questions about the arguments and conclusions drawn from such usage.

          >3. And there is the Two Ways in the Didache. And there exists
          >another written wisdom collection... Thomas, of course... that like
          >Q shows clear signs of redaction from a basic collection of the
          >parabolic and aphoristic speech. Q1 as a document has an integrity
          >internally and related to the historical circumstance and to the
          >content of the other collections of wisdom.

          See 2 above. Q1 has no such integrity.

          >and from there...
          >4. Once we get to dear old Paul, even he will work from this wisdom
          >heritage to talk about the meaning of the Cross and affirm in I Cor.
          >1:30 that the order for theological reflection of what has come from
          >God in Jesus is first wisdom. Such as his "two ways" sort of
          >summary and the sort that we see in James 3 suggest a basic
          >dependence on these earlier collections.

          Again, we can accept that early oral traditions did exist, but the
          very diversity in how these are reported argues against them being
          preserved in any kind of orderly (let alone written) form.

          >5. When we get to Mark after the war... he will say what he says
          >about Jesus' speech in 4:33-4.

          Well, Mark is pre-war, possibly as early as 55-60, so this argument
          is hardly persuasive. ;^)

          > 6. Likewise Q itself is redacted.

          Only if Q exists. And if Luke knows Matthew, then we should shift
          our focus to how Luke redacted both Mark and Matt. Speculations
          about earlier sources that are rooted in such efforts may be
          interesting, but they will remain nothing more than speculations.

          >7. Matthew will utilize Mark and Q and his own sources and
          >imagination...
          >and insofar as the parabolic and aphoristic is concerned... he'll
          >create some more parables and utilize Q to add to the aphorisms.

          Or Matthew used Mark, his own sources, and his imagination. Calling
          any portion of his sources Q only confuses the issue, as the
          existence of Q (which is, specifically, Matt/Luke parallels not found
          in Mark) presupposes that he and Luke used it independently of one
          another.

          >8. The Didache's own development is apiece with the foundational
          >charter that begins it.
          >9. From Signs to John shows a form of gospelling that is rooted in a
          >wisdom foundation and in its own form of midrash and story creation
          >wherein the parabolic and aphoristic speech is now turned
          >to "character speech" (Jesus as Wisdom's child). This suggests
          >knowledge of a written collection... not just memory between 30 and
          >the 90's!

          This still says nothing about Luke, since John could have been
          composed in two or three stages (as I believe is most likely), while
          Luke could have been composed pretty much as we know it entirely from
          his knowledge of Mark, Matthew, and his own special material (which
          may well have included some of John's sources). Since John did not
          use the double tradition material found in Matt/Luke (he does not
          even show awareness of such a thing), then we obviously cannot use it
          as any kind of evidence for Q.

          >10. And to round out this little decalogue... I don't think Luke
          >knowing Matthew kills off the existence of a Q document. I don't
          >lose any sleep if Luke didn't know Matthew, but there's no reason at
          >all to say an author can't have several original sources... in this
          >case Q and Mark and Matthew (and how many other of
          >those "many"???)... and do his own thing.

          This ignores the foundational premise for positing the 2DH at all.
          One might as well begin proposing all sorts of early stage
          developments for Mark. Such early pre-Markan sources may well exist,
          but scholars avoid doing this as they recognize that they would be
          leaving the world of source criticism, and engaging in wholesale
          speculation without the benefit of any kinds of objective controls.
          We do not break down Mark because there is no reason to do so, and we
          should not be speculating on Q if we establish that Luke was
          dependent upon Matthew for some of his material.

          Peace,

          Brian Trafford
          Calgary, AB, Canada
        • Ron Price
          ... Gordon, Replace Q by a sayings source in the above and I d then agree. For that s the position I take, that Luke had three written sources (the Three
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 3, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Gordon Raynal wrote:

            > I don't think Luke knowing
            > Matthew kills off the existence of a Q document .....
            > there's no reason at all to say an author
            > can't have several original sources... in this case Q and Mark and Matthew

            Gordon,

            Replace "Q" by "a sayings source" in the above and I'd then agree. For
            that's the position I take, that Luke had three written sources (the
            Three Source Theory or '3ST').

            > I do think the edges are a tad fuzzy once we get to Q3 especially.
            > But Q1 to Q 2 hold together nicely.

            The problem with your position is that once we admit that Luke used a
            sayings source as well as Matthew, it opens a pandora's box in regard to
            the composition of the sayings source. For instance alien literary units
            such as narrative (Temptation, Centurion's Servant, Beelzebul
            controversy) can be better explained as Luke's direct use of Matthew.

            In the 3ST, stratification of the sayings source becomes unnecessary,
            for it's easy to construct a source which is coherent, both in literary
            terms and theologically. I've done this and called it "sQ" (see my Web
            site). Unlike the messy (and to my mind incredible) Q, sQ has a clear
            structure (72 paired sayings).

            >2. Related to this is the associated aphoristic speech. That speech has a
            >coherence all its own.

            sQ consists mainly of aphorisms.

            > ... It has clear roots in the Hebraic heritage,

            Kloppenborg thinks Q originated as a Greek text, which makes its
            Hebraic roots far from clear. This is another advantage of sQ, for I
            have good reason to believe that it was in Aramaic (or just possibly
            Hebrew).

            >3. And there is the Two Ways in the Didache.

            The theme of the Two Ways occurs in several sQ sayings. Indeed in Mt
            7:13-14 // Lk 13:24, sQ follows Matthew's Two Gates, whereas the IQP's Q
            follows Luke's insipid version (in my opinion one of many examples of
            the IQP's Lucan bias).

            To summarize, sQ has a far clearer structure than Q, it is far more
            coherent than Q, and its posited language better fits its Hebrew
            heritage (and Papias' TA LOGIA).

            Ron Price

            Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

            e-mail: ron.price@...

            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.