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

Re: [XTalk] Re: What Luke Had to Work With/Against

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 3 2:30 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      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,
      >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).

      All I want to say in this regard is that I still hold on to Q (although I
      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.

      Gordon Raynal
      Inman, SC
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.