Re: [XTalk] Re: What Luke Had to Work With/Against
- Hi Brian and Ron,
Thanks for your replies. I'll let what I wrote stand as I think haggling
out the battle of Q/no Q is pretty much out there and folks can read the
fine work by the IQP folks versus our good pal Mark Goodacre and make their
choices. Ron, as regards a couple of points in this note...
> In the 3ST, stratification of the sayings source becomes unnecessary,All I want to say in this regard is that I still hold on to Q (although I
>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).
wish scholars would give it a much cooler name, like "The Wisdom of
Jesus:)!) and perhaps there were yet other "Proverbs like" works. "Luke"
will say "many," which on the basis of Q and early Thomas I see no reason
not to include yet more written saying sources. I know this worries the
fool out of folks who like their data a bit tidier, but again we're now
aware of at least 34 gospels at last count. In talking with Charlie
Hedrick, there are still piles and piles of papyri in Germany, Cairo, etc.
that have never been examined. Who knows what's in those??? And then who
knows just how many attempts by 1st century Christians were just lost or
thrown out once the very nice and usable little masterpieces came into
place??? Despite Brian's quotes of such as Kloppenborg on the integrity of
Q1 (his wanting more certitude about boundaries), its a matter of
understanding wisdom speech and the construction of saying genres
(meaning... finding out such as the number of gatherings that led over the
centuries to the compiling of what we have as Proverbs isn't nearly so neat
a process as understanding the redactional layers, say, in the sources that
make up Torah). As regards Q having an original and 2 redactions across 2
decades and maybe more (meaning I wonder if Q1 wasn't drawn up for handy use
in the 30's... and the final redaction is in the 60's or early post-war),
I'm actually more confident about that integrity... have read it a lot of
times and think that it has a clear utilization in the Mission and think it
nicely explains the shape of much of the midrashic and story creation that
we see in the narrative gospels. But at any rate... this Pandora's
box/messiness doesn't really concern me so much.
So... I'm not against this source, too! I just don't think its existence
either knocks out Q nor "Luke's" reading of "many" sources to compile
his/her own work.