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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Why Luke?

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    Mike and Bob, ... That is fine. I asked for agreements, disagreements, additional points. I m not trying to win a popularity contest, rather simply in this
    Message 1 of 25 , Apr 27, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike and Bob,

      >I suspect there's a great deal of disagreement besides my own, even
      >if most folks choose to let you go on your own way unchallenged.

      That is fine. I asked for agreements, disagreements, additional points.
      I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, rather simply in this short
      communication format trying to lay out a brief set of points to show a
      certain way to understand the dating and relationship of texts and what's
      happening inside Luke, in this case.


      I
      >note, for example, that you admit only that "news of [GMatt] was in
      >the air" - some 25-35 years after its writing (on your dating)! The
      >fellow who wrote GLuke was familiar with all sorts of minor texts,
      >on your view (even Secret Mark, of all things), and yet hadn't read
      >a major work written a generation earlier!

      I stated it this way to avoid for the umpteenth time getting into 2DH
      conversation. Let me simply say as I have before, I don't think the
      existence of Q and a late date for Luke are at odds. If you are willing to
      grant Q's existence Mike (I've had some off-list exchanges with Bob and the
      last time we had them he said he's still not certain about Q), then a piece
      of literature that had served it's function well could still be laying
      around for him to have in 120, just like G.Thomas, if you're willing to
      grant an early date for a layer of its composition. G.Thomas survived
      tucked away, Q survied ensconsed in Mt. and Luke. (Just a side note, even if
      Farrer is correct, this doesn't effect my doing the dating this way.)

      Now, if you've granted Q's existence then turning to knowledge of Matthew,
      here are the possibilities:
      a. he didn't know of it
      b. he knew of it but hadn't read it
      c. he read it and for whatever sets of reasons decided something new was
      needed.

      Reading Matthew and Luke, granting Markan priority and Q's existence, then
      we see a new sort of work that as I've tried to show accomplishes a number
      of things in relationship to issues we **see** in other literature. So,
      let's just propose in this scenario that he read it, then he wasn't
      satisfied and did something new within this genre.

      Forgive me for saying
      >that this seems nothing less than a brazen attempt to eat your Q-
      >cake and have it too. If you're so intent on a late GLk, why not
      >admit that it's most unlikely that he would have been familiar with
      >the more obscure and hard-to-find texts that you mention, and yet
      >be unfamiliar with the readily-available GMt?

      "Obscure" and "hard to find" is our situation. I see no reason to foist
      this on Luke's time. We now know of some 30+ (what's the latest count)
      gospels. I'm prone to say that there were many more during the first 300
      years. Most that we know of are later still, suggesting to me that this era
      of creativity was quite alive and well for a long time. I think the "many"
      Luke refers to actually refers to more than my listing, but I worked from
      what we do now know about. "Obscure," and "hard to find" is a modern
      trouble and one that is thankfully being left behind thanks to all the
      recent and ongoing publication. I wouldn't place that burden on Luke at
      all.
      >
      >On the matter of the relationship of GLk to GJn that enters into
      >some of your 10 points, you may be aware that some Johannine
      >scholars posit an early version of John (not just a Signs Source,
      >mind you). This would make it possible that Luke was reacting in
      >part to John, and yet be much earlier than you imagine. Why you
      >think it's connected with some vague time of strife in the Holy
      >Land that could not yet have been anticipated to have been leading
      >up to a second revolt, is a mystery to me, especially as GLk seems
      >geared to Gentiles outside the Holy Land.

      I do know about the early John. I have no idea why you refer to "vague time
      of strife" refering to Bar Kochba. And I disagree that this wasn't a
      concern to those outside the Holy Land. And I disagree that Luke's audience
      is **only** Gentiles. As was posted recently (and I'm sorry I forget who
      made the point), but records show "Jews" and "Christians" still hanging out
      together in some places into the 3rd century.

      Gordon Raynal
      Inman, SC
      >
      >Mike Grondin
      >Mt. Clemens, MI
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
      >
      >To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Bob Schacht
      ... Gordon, You must be one of the few people in the known universe who think this way. ... Since you bring it up, I am among those who think that if Q
      Message 2 of 25 , Apr 27, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        At 05:44 PM 4/27/2004 -0400, Gordon Raynal wrote:
        >Mike and Bob,
        >
        >...
        > >I note, for example, that you admit only that "news of [GMatt] was in
        > >the air" - some 25-35 years after its writing (on your dating)! The
        > >fellow who wrote GLuke was familiar with all sorts of minor texts,
        > >on your view (even Secret Mark, of all things), and yet hadn't read
        > >a major work written a generation earlier!
        >
        >I stated it this way to avoid for the umpteenth time getting into 2DH
        >conversation. Let me simply say as I have before, I don't think the
        >existence of Q and a late date for Luke are at odds.

        Gordon,
        You must be one of the few people in the known universe who think this way.

        > If you are willing to
        >grant Q's existence Mike (I've had some off-list exchanges with Bob and the
        >last time we had them he said he's still not certain about Q),...

        Since you bring it up, I am among those who think that if Q existed, it is
        extremely unlikely that Luke wrote 25 - 35 years after Matthew, and your
        attempt to make it so seems contrived to me.

        > >Forgive me for saying that this seems nothing less than a brazen attempt
        > to eat
        > >your Q-cake and have it too. If you're so intent on a late GLk, why not
        > >admit that it's most unlikely that he would have been familiar with
        > >the more obscure and hard-to-find texts that you mention, and yet
        > >be unfamiliar with the readily-available GMt?
        >
        >"Obscure" and "hard to find" is our situation. I see no reason to foist
        >this on Luke's time.

        Yes, but how do you know what was obscure and hard to find to Luke, other
        than by circular arguments? In terms of known manuscripts, the Gospel of
        Matthew is much more common than the Gospel of Mary.

        >... "Obscure," and "hard to find" is a modern
        >trouble and one that is thankfully being left behind thanks to all the
        >recent and ongoing publication. I wouldn't place that burden on Luke at
        >all....

        Then why place that burden on Luke in the case of GMatthew? Still seems
        like you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

        Bob

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Gordon Raynal
        Hi Bob, I ve got to run, but quickly... ... Mack thinks this way. Crossan (see his large Jesus book) dates Mt. ca. 90 and Luke in that 3rd layer between 80
        Message 3 of 25 , Apr 27, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Bob,
          I've got to run, but quickly...

          >>I stated it this way to avoid for the umpteenth time getting into 2DH
          >>conversation. Let me simply say as I have before, I don't think the
          >>existence of Q and a late date for Luke are at odds.
          >
          >Gordon,
          >You must be one of the few people in the known universe who think this way.

          Mack thinks this way. Crossan (see his large Jesus book) dates Mt. ca. 90
          and Luke in that 3rd layer between 80 and 120 (for his third stratum). He
          sees John after Luke. I see it before and a wee bit later than his 120
          marker. He dates Acts 120 to 150 (his fourth stratum. I'm very much
          looking forward to the report of the Acts Seminar. I've not been to Santa
          Rosa since 2000, but in the first meetings I heard some suggest as late as
          150 for Acts. I'll be interested to see the current consensus on that.
          Perhaps Ted knows.

          >Yes, but how do you know what was obscure and hard to find to Luke, other
          >than by circular arguments? In terms of known manuscripts, the Gospel of
          >Matthew is much more common than the Gospel of Mary.

          Again look at the way Crossan lists the documents in strata. You'll see
          where we disagree. But as to mss. numbers having anything to do with this
          assessment, it has basically none. Canonization set the limits on texts and
          authorization. Concerns over "heresy" and positively in terms of
          instruction and good order meant the favored ones survived and those left
          behind didn't. One has to look at issues and themes in available texts and
          compare these to make assessments. I am fine with you rejecting all of
          this, but I invite you to look at such to consider an alternative
          perspective.

          Must go.

          Gordon
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... The key here is If you are willing to grant Q s existence. What does it is mean to grant Q s existence? There s no direct manuscript evidence of Q.
          Message 4 of 25 , Apr 27, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            At 05:44 PM 4/27/2004 -0400, Gordon Raynal wrote:
            >>I
            >>note, for example, that you admit only that "news of [GMatt] was in
            >>the air" - some 25-35 years after its writing (on your dating)! The
            >>fellow who wrote GLuke was familiar with all sorts of minor texts,
            >>on your view (even Secret Mark, of all things), and yet hadn't read
            >>a major work written a generation earlier!
            >
            >I stated it this way to avoid for the umpteenth time getting into 2DH
            >conversation. Let me simply say as I have before, I don't think the
            >existence of Q and a late date for Luke are at odds. If you are willing to
            >grant Q's existence Mike (I've had some off-list exchanges with Bob and the
            >last time we had them he said he's still not certain about Q), then a piece
            >of literature that had served it's function well could still be laying
            >around for him to have in 120, just like G.Thomas, if you're willing to
            >grant an early date for a layer of its composition. G.Thomas survived
            >tucked away, Q survied ensconsed in Mt. and Luke. (Just a side note, even if
            >Farrer is correct, this doesn't effect my doing the dating this way.)

            The key here is "If you are willing to grant Q's existence." What does
            it is mean to grant Q's existence? There's no direct manuscript evidence
            of Q. Rather, Q is an inference from a set of premises and observations
            of textual patterns in the synoptic gospels. Now, Christopher M. Tuckett
            in his chapter, "The Existence of Q," in his Q AND THE HISTORY OF EARLY
            CHRISTIANITY states: "At one level, the Q hypothesis is simply a negative
            theory, denying the possibility that one evangelist made direct use of
            the work of the other." (p. 4).

            Thus, if one is "willing to grant Q's existence," one must also accept
            the historical contraints inherent in granting Q's existence -- or find
            a way to postulate Q even in the face of Luke's use of Matthew. This
            means that if one accepts Q, one cannot place Luke too far after the
            composition of Matthew, especially since Matthew was by far the most
            popular gospel based on manuscript attestation and patristic quotations,
            early in the second century. In fact, Matthew was known to Ignatius,
            a self-conscious imitator of Paul, around 110, so the idea that another
            Paulinist a decade later with a great interest in collecting Jesus
            traditions in the same region that Ignatius wrote letters to was somehow
            unacquainted with Matthew boggles the mind. And, if the Third Evangelist
            was acquainted with Matthew, then Q is disappears in a puff of logic.
            That is why most introductions and commentaries end up dating Luke and
            Matthew as contemporaries.

            Another problem is the way Marcion in the 130s treated Luke. He claimed
            that it had been interpolated and needed editing to be restored to its
            true apostolic (read Pauline) character. Such a claim presumes and, in
            fact, would have been plausible, even attractive, if Luke had been written
            at least a generation earlier, but ridiculous if Luke had been a fairly
            recent composition in Marcion's day.

            Tellng us that "Mack thinks this way" is one thing. Telling us where
            Mack is not only aware of the problem but also has a cogent response
            to problem would be even better. I couldn't find it in Mack's writings,
            but perhaps you do.

            Stephen Carlson
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
            Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
            "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
          • Mike Grondin
            ... Though Crossan does indeed include GLk in the third stratum (along with GMt), he states that GLk was Written possibly as early as the nineties but before
            Message 5 of 25 , Apr 27, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Gordon to Bob:
              > Crossan (see his large Jesus book) dates Mt. ca. 90 and Luke in
              > that 3rd layer between 80 and 120 (for his third stratum).

              Though Crossan does indeed include GLk in the third stratum (along
              with GMt), he states that GLk was "Written possibly as early as the
              nineties but before John 1-20, which used its passion and
              resurrection account." (HJ, p.431) Given that he says that "The
              first edition of the Gospel of John [which included the passion and
              resurrection account] was composed very early in the second century
              CE ..." (ibid), and given a certain amount of time for GLk to have
              reached the hands of the authors of GJn and for GJn to have been
              composed, it seems that Crossan's _latest_ date for GLk is likely
              some distance from your _earliest_.

              Mike Grondin
              Mt. Clemens, MI
            • Joseph Weaks
              ... Well, that might be a bit of an overstatement. I ve written a few things that the guy across the street doesn t know about. Point is, considering this is
              Message 6 of 25 , Apr 27, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                On Apr 27, 2004, at 10:38 PM, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                > This means that if one accepts Q, one cannot place Luke too far after
                > the
                > composition of Matthew, especially since Matthew was by far the most
                > popular gospel based on manuscript attestation and patristic
                > quotations,
                > early in the second century. In fact, Matthew was known to Ignatius,
                > a self-conscious imitator of Paul, around 110, so the idea that another
                > Paulinist a decade later with a great interest in collecting Jesus
                > traditions in the same region that Ignatius wrote letters to was
                > somehow
                > unacquainted with Matthew boggles the mind.

                Well, that might be a bit of an overstatement. I've written a few
                things that the guy across the street doesn't know about. Point is,
                considering this is all mucky social history, and not algebra, such
                things are quite possible. The burgeoning popularity of Matthew in the
                Second Century says nothing about the popularity of Matthew in 95. It
                is highly possible that a moment occurred (could be 110 or 120) where
                Matthew was grasped by a scriptorium or a patron or a network of
                churches and became "more" widely used than other gospels from only
                that point forward.

                For folks interested in these issues, you should know that Joseph Tyson
                has been working on the argument for a late date for Luke.

                Also, David Balch's article on just what Luke meant by a "full account"
                is excellent:
                Balch, D. "ἀκριβῶς... γράψαι (Luke 1:3), To Write the Full History of
                God's Receiving All Nations"
                the article is found in
                Moessner, David, editor. _Jesus and the Heritage of Israel_ (Trinity
                Press, 1999), p. 229-250.

                Cheers,
                Joe Weaks

                **************************************************************
                Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
                Leander Keck Fellow of NT Studies, Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
                j.weaks@...
                **************************************************************
              • Mike Grondin
                ... Fine with me. Is that your new position? Still doesn t imply that GLk was written no earlier than 120. ... Not sure why you re arguing this, since you ve
                Message 7 of 25 , Apr 27, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- Gordon Raynal wrote:
                  > So, let's just propose in this scenario that he [Luke] read it
                  > [GMt], then he wasn't satisfied and did something new within this
                  > genre.

                  Fine with me. Is that your new position? Still doesn't imply that
                  GLk was written no earlier than 120.

                  [MG]:
                  > If you're so intent on a late GLk, why not admit that it's most
                  > unlikely that he would have been familiar with the more obscure
                  > and hard-to-find texts that you mention, and yet be unfamiliar
                  > with the readily-available GMt?

                  [GR]:
                  > "Obscure" and "hard to find" is our situation. I see no reason to
                  > foist this on Luke's time.

                  Not sure why you're arguing this, since you've seemingly granted
                  the point of the argument - namely, that your dating implies that
                  Luke knew GMt - but I particularly had Secret Mark in mind. This
                  was one of the dozen items you listed as being probably known to
                  Luke if he was writing ca 120-130. If there was a "Secret Mark",
                  it's not anachronistic to suggest that it would have been "hard to
                  find". Clement's purported letter indicates exactly that.

                  > I have no idea why you refer to "vague time of strife" refering
                  > to Bar Kochba.

                  Perhaps I should have said "time of vague strife". This is where I
                  think your reasoning might be anachronistic. WE know that the Bar
                  Kochba revolt occurred after your dating of GLk, but LUKE wouldn't
                  have known that when he was writing GLk. So what do you suppose was
                  occurring in the Holy Land _exactly_ (no generalizing, please) that
                  moved Luke to write his gospel at that particular point in time when
                  there was as yet no Bar Kochba in sight? (Or was there? I'd be happy
                  to learn what there was about the period 120-130 that makes that a
                  good candidate for dating GLk.)

                  Mike Grondin
                  Mt. Clemens, MI
                • Stephen C. Carlson
                  ... All other things being equal, I think you have some good points, but other things are all not equal. We re not talking about 95; we re talking about Luke
                  Message 8 of 25 , Apr 27, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 11:30 PM 4/27/2004 -0500, Joseph Weaks wrote:
                    >On Apr 27, 2004, at 10:38 PM, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                    >> This means that if one accepts Q, one cannot place Luke too far after
                    >> the
                    >> composition of Matthew, especially since Matthew was by far the most
                    >> popular gospel based on manuscript attestation and patristic
                    >> quotations,
                    >> early in the second century. In fact, Matthew was known to Ignatius,
                    >> a self-conscious imitator of Paul, around 110, so the idea that another
                    >> Paulinist a decade later with a great interest in collecting Jesus
                    >> traditions in the same region that Ignatius wrote letters to was
                    >> somehow
                    >> unacquainted with Matthew boggles the mind.
                    >
                    >Well, that might be a bit of an overstatement. I've written a few
                    >things that the guy across the street doesn't know about. Point is,
                    >considering this is all mucky social history, and not algebra, such
                    >things are quite possible. The burgeoning popularity of Matthew in the
                    >Second Century says nothing about the popularity of Matthew in 95. It
                    >is highly possible that a moment occurred (could be 110 or 120) where
                    >Matthew was grasped by a scriptorium or a patron or a network of
                    >churches and became "more" widely used than other gospels from only
                    >that point forward.

                    All other things being equal, I think you have some good points,
                    but other things are all not equal.

                    We're not talking about 95; we're talking about Luke being composed
                    in the 120s. We're also not talking about a person uninterested in
                    in the material but in a person who in Luke 1:1-4 claimed to have
                    investigated things thoroughly and, according to Gordon, was successful
                    in ferretting out several sources about Jesus, including (if I remember
                    Gordon right) *Secret* Mark, which wasn't supposed to have left
                    Alexandria. Yes, mathematical certainty can't be had in history,
                    and many things are possible, but not all things are probable, and
                    the combination of Q and a Luke much later than Matthew is improbable.

                    >For folks interested in these issues, you should know that Joseph Tyson
                    >has been working on the argument for a late date for Luke.

                    If I recall correctly, Tyson is sympathetic to the Griesbach hypothesis,
                    Matthew -> Luke -> Mark (no Q). My complaint here is not with a late
                    Luke or Q individually, but their combination. That Tyson is working on
                    a late Luke in a framework where Q did not exist is not a problem for me
                    (though I'm developing evidence that Luke was Papias's favorite gospel,
                    which limits how late Luke can be, but that's not ready for prime-time
                    yet).

                    >Also, David Balch's article on just what Luke meant by a "full account"
                    >is excellent:
                    >Balch, D. "ἀκριβῶς... γράψαι (Luke 1:3), To Write the Full History of
                    >God's Receiving All Nations"
                    >the article is found in
                    >Moessner, David, editor. _Jesus and the Heritage of Israel_ (Trinity
                    >Press, 1999), p. 229-250.

                    Thanks for the reference.

                    Stephen Carlson
                    --
                    Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                    Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
                    "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                  • Joseph Weaks
                    ... Yep. You re right. I forgot that part of the previous argument. I am agreeing with you: Gordon is a loon. ... I agree. We must talk in terms of
                    Message 9 of 25 , Apr 27, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Apr 28, 2004, at 12:35 AM, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                      >> Well, that might be a bit of an overstatement. I've written a few
                      >> things that the guy across the street doesn't know about. Point is,
                      >> considering this is all mucky social history, and not algebra, such
                      >> things are quite possible. The burgeoning popularity of Matthew in the
                      >> Second Century says nothing about the popularity of Matthew in 95. It
                      >> is highly possible that a moment occurred (could be 110 or 120) where
                      >> Matthew was grasped by a scriptorium or a patron or a network of
                      >> churches and became "more" widely used than other gospels from only
                      >> that point forward.
                      >
                      > All other things being equal, I think you have some good points,
                      > but other things are all not equal.
                      >
                      > We're not talking about 95; we're talking about Luke being composed
                      > in the 120s.

                      Yep. You're right. I forgot that part of the previous argument. I am
                      agreeing with you: Gordon is a loon.

                      > We're also not talking about a person uninterested in
                      > in the material but in a person who in Luke 1:1-4 claimed to have
                      > investigated things thoroughly and, according to Gordon, was successful
                      > in ferretting out several sources about Jesus, including (if I remember
                      > Gordon right) *Secret* Mark, which wasn't supposed to have left
                      > Alexandria. Yes, mathematical certainty can't be had in history,
                      > and many things are possible, but not all things are probable, and
                      > the combination of Q and a Luke much later than Matthew is improbable.

                      I agree. We must talk in terms of probabilities/plausibilities. Still,
                      even a dormancy of 10 years is quite possible. It could be argued that
                      Mat was not well-known/distributed until 110 or even 120. And,
                      considering geography, even more so. It is so difficult to make
                      'logical' conclusions based upon historical proximities. Still, I'm not
                      arguing for such a late Luke. I think your objections regarding to a
                      late Luke who knew Q but not Matthew are right on. As I said, I think
                      Gordon is a loon.

                      >> For folks interested in these issues, you should know that Joseph
                      >> Tyson
                      >> has been working on the argument for a late date for Luke.
                      >
                      > If I recall correctly, Tyson is sympathetic to the Griesbach
                      > hypothesis,
                      > Matthew -> Luke -> Mark (no Q). My complaint here is not with a late
                      > Luke or Q individually, but their combination.

                      Frankly, I don't recall how he is publishing it. I know he oscillates a
                      bit on Mat or Markan priority. I was in a seminar where he was giving
                      the early arguments for late Luke, but I don't recall how it fit in the
                      order of gospel formations in his thinking.

                      >> Also, David Balch's article on just what Luke meant by a "full
                      >> account"
                      >> is excellent:
                      >> Balch, D. "áπ•ÎºÏ™Î’ΔῶÏ≠... ΓϙάÏ√αΒ (Luke 1:3), To Write the
                      >> Full History of
                      >> God's Receiving All Nations"
                      >> the article is found in
                      >> Moessner, David, editor. _Jesus and the Heritage of Israel_ (Trinity
                      >> Press, 1999), p. 229-250.

                      For those of you whose email clients couldn't handle the unicode Greek,
                      the words in the title of course were:
                      "AKRIBWS... GRAYAI".

                      And Gordon, you know in reality I have grown quite fond of you. I do
                      think your arguments here have not been your strongest.

                      Joe Weaks

                      **************************************************************
                      Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                      Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
                      Leander Keck Fellow of NT Studies, Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
                      j.weaks@...
                      **************************************************************
                    • Ron Price
                      ... Stephen, I had a brief clash with Bill Arnal on this topic around a couple of years ago, when I put forward the same argument as you (though less
                      Message 10 of 25 , Apr 28, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Stephen Carlson wrote:

                        > .....if one accepts Q, one cannot place Luke too far after the
                        > composition of Matthew, especially since Matthew was by far the most
                        > popular gospel based on manuscript attestation and patristic quotations,
                        > early in the second century.

                        Stephen,

                        I had a brief clash with Bill Arnal on this topic around a couple of years
                        ago, when I put forward the same argument as you (though less eloquently).

                        > .....if the Third Evangelist
                        > was acquainted with Matthew, then Q is disappears in a puff of logic.

                        Technically this is correct. But I can't let this statement go without
                        comment as it is quite misleading. (Is no one listening to me?)
                        Q disappears, but not the idea of an early written sayings source used by
                        both Matthew and Luke.

                        Ron Price

                        Derbyshire, UK

                        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                      • Gordon Raynal
                        Stephen and Joseph and others interested, The Loon speaketh;)! (Joseph, smart birds, those loons... they know how to dive and finds things under water that
                        Message 11 of 25 , Apr 28, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Stephen and Joseph and others interested,

                          "The Loon" speaketh;)! (Joseph, smart birds, those loons... they know how to
                          dive and finds things under water that folks who just keep glancing at the
                          surface will never see:)!)

                          Now... to speaketh forth:)! I really don't want to spend much time on this
                          issue because I don't think we're really going to move much beyond what
                          we've already talked about and because I want folks to **read** the texts
                          and think about intertextuality and creativity. But a few words here and
                          there:

                          >The key here is "If you are willing to grant Q's existence." What does
                          >it is mean to grant Q's existence? There's no direct manuscript evidence
                          >of Q. Rather, Q is an inference from a set of premises and observations
                          >of textual patterns in the synoptic gospels. Now, Christopher M. Tuckett
                          >in his chapter, "The Existence of Q," in his Q AND THE HISTORY OF EARLY
                          >CHRISTIANITY states: "At one level, the Q hypothesis is simply a negative
                          >theory, denying the possibility that one evangelist made direct use of
                          >the work of the other." (p. 4).

                          That there is no direct mss evidence is hardly a big issue in these studies.
                          Such applies to the redactional study of practically every document we
                          have: the wonder story collection underneath Mark and Signs to John. Signs
                          to extant John through several layers. Study of the Corinthian
                          correspondence. Etc. Etc. Etc. As for this **only** being a negative
                          theory, that is balderdash. A lot of very smart folks have written very
                          thoughtful and extensive pieces on Q. To grant Q is no big issue when we
                          have an extant sayings Gospel, when we have reference to "the Sayings of the
                          Lord," and when one will spend some serious time reading the thing and work
                          with it as a document.
                          >
                          >Thus, if one is "willing to grant Q's existence," one must also accept
                          >the historical contraints inherent in granting Q's existence -- or find
                          >a way to postulate Q even in the face of Luke's use of Matthew. This
                          >means that if one accepts Q, one cannot place Luke too far after the
                          >composition of Matthew, especially since Matthew was by far the most
                          >popular gospel based on manuscript attestation and patristic quotations,
                          >early in the second century. In fact, Matthew was known to Ignatius,
                          >a self-conscious imitator of Paul, around 110, so the idea that another
                          >Paulinist a decade later with a great interest in collecting Jesus
                          >traditions in the same region that Ignatius wrote letters to was somehow
                          >unacquainted with Matthew boggles the mind. And, if the Third Evangelist
                          >was acquainted with Matthew, then Q is disappears in a puff of logic.
                          >That is why most introductions and commentaries end up dating Luke and
                          >Matthew as contemporaries.

                          This idea of constraints for you Stephen is a strong argument. It is not at
                          all for me. Why? Well lets say, for sake of some fun, that if I'm planting
                          some bulbs today in my yard and come upon Q in an amphora in my front yard,
                          then I could bring it inside and take Mark and yet knowing lots of other
                          documents craft something new focusing on those two documents, with only
                          minor reference to others. Just for a moment try to imagine that most every
                          major church had and treasured this sayings source, proverbially, sitting on
                          the pulpit. Along comes Matthew in 95 and utilizes Mark, Q and some of his
                          own exegetical work and crafts something new. Time moves on. There's a
                          whole flurry of writing going on. Luke circa 30 years later has Mark and
                          good old Q. He's really has on hand some other documents... like the
                          Baptismal Credo... like the Didache and John, some version of birth and
                          childhood stories... G. Mary. He's heard of "many other writings"... maybe
                          only knows some by reputation or hearsay. Let's say that's his knowledge of
                          G. Matthew. This does not suggest that he was ill-informed. This does not
                          suggest he "wasn't acquainted with" Matthew, it simply means that he did his
                          own thing based centrally in two (actually I think 3) important and
                          well-used and trusted documents: Mark and Q (and then a written parable
                          collection). I do think he had G. John. He didn't want to go that way in
                          story format and style, but he did like the Jerusalem focus that John
                          utilized (as an example of borrowing). If he also actually had Matthew,
                          then what his creativity shows is that he "did his own thing." It is
                          **very** important not to conflate concerns about the 2DH with the issues
                          about sources and creativity with them. These are related issues, but not
                          the same issue.
                          So, **if** you lay down the 2DH concerns for awhile, go on and read Q and
                          Mark, I'll bet you could come up with a pretty inovative "Gospel of Stephen"
                          right here in 2004. And I'll bet that even though you know Matthew and Luke
                          you can be innovative and combine these materials that puts your stamp on
                          these sources.

                          >Tellng us that "Mack thinks this way" is one thing. Telling us where
                          >Mack is not only aware of the problem but also has a cogent response
                          >to problem would be even better. I couldn't find it in Mack's writings,
                          >but perhaps you do.

                          No, I don't know where he's written about it, only that that is his dating.
                          Maybe next SBL I'll ask him about it.

                          I'll leave the last word to you about Q. What I wish folks would do is
                          spend some serious time with it as a document. Read it as a whole. Work on
                          the redactional issues. Think about the social history implied. Think
                          about it as a form of expression in relation to other forms of expression.
                          Our good friend Mark Goodacre has made his case. Mack, the J. Sem., the
                          Intl. Q project have variously made their cases.

                          Now the loon flies off to lunch:)! For others who've written I'll try to
                          get to the notes soon.

                          Gordon Raynal
                          Inman, SC
                        • Joseph Weaks
                          ... Nor can I let this go. Some Q/Sayings Source enthusiasts always fudge at this point. There are some arguments for early written sayings sources outside of
                          Message 12 of 25 , Apr 28, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Apr 28, 2004, at 5:05 AM, Ron Price wrote:
                            >> .....if the Third Evangelist
                            >> was acquainted with Matthew, then Q is disappears in a puff of logic.
                            >
                            > Technically this is correct. But I can't let this statement go
                            > without
                            > comment as it is quite misleading. (Is no one listening to me?)
                            > Q disappears, but not the idea of an early written sayings source
                            > used by
                            > both Matthew and Luke.

                            Nor can I let this go. Some Q/Sayings Source enthusiasts always fudge
                            at this point. There are some arguments for early written sayings
                            sources outside of the Q hypothesis, but not many. See M. E. Boring in
                            several publications on early Christian prophecy and gospel formation.
                            But in the absence of Q, the arguments for an early form of Thomas
                            break down. The oral nature of the sayings tradition becomes MUCH more
                            likely than a written one. Jesus' prophetic words are proclaimed in the
                            ekklesia and become written for the first time in Mark (perhaps a form
                            previous to the canonical form).
                            In the absolute absence of an early written sayings source (if we can
                            call the hypothetical Q a source to begin with), then we must give more
                            credence to what we know about Greco-Roman historiographers/biographers
                            (including the famous quote of Thucydides), that the deeds described
                            are based upon fact finding, but the words are invented by the author
                            as "the kind of things he said in this type of circumstance".

                            Cheers,
                            Joe Weaks

                            **************************************************************
                            Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                            Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
                            Leander Keck Fellow of NT Studies, Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
                            j.weaks@...
                            **************************************************************
                          • Stephen C. Carlson
                            ... Should I have said Q as we know it ? :-) Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Weblog:
                            Message 13 of 25 , Apr 29, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 11:05 AM 4/28/2004 +0100, Ron Price wrote:
                              >> .....if the Third Evangelist
                              >> was acquainted with Matthew, then Q is disappears in a puff of logic.
                              >
                              > Technically this is correct. But I can't let this statement go without
                              >comment as it is quite misleading. (Is no one listening to me?)
                              > Q disappears, but not the idea of an early written sayings source used by
                              >both Matthew and Luke.

                              Should I have said "Q as we know it"? :-)

                              Stephen Carlson
                              --
                              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                              Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
                              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                            • Gordon Raynal
                              Hi Mike, ... I note your suggestion that I ve come up with a new position here. I ve not. I m simply not certain whether Luke ***read*** and ***studied***
                              Message 14 of 25 , Apr 29, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Mike,

                                >> So, let's just propose in this scenario that he [Luke] read it
                                >> [GMt], then he wasn't satisfied and did something new within this
                                >> genre.
                                >
                                >Fine with me. Is that your new position? Still doesn't imply that
                                >GLk was written no earlier than 120.

                                I note your suggestion that I've come up with "a new" position here. I've
                                not. I'm simply not certain whether Luke ***read*** and ***studied***
                                Matthew. As you saw in notes yesterday, I think he had knowledge of it, but
                                didn't utilize it to write his own account. The only indication that this
                                gives as regards time is that it is post Matthew which with Crossan's dating
                                (the 90's) means its later than that. Per yesterdays note to Vincent my
                                early marker is set by what I think he used with time for some serious
                                thought and reflection in relationship to those works, namely: John, ca.
                                100+, some version of G. Mary (and if Ted is correct that John used Mary
                                that pushes it to the 90's), but I think again ca. 100-110, the Baptismal
                                Credo, ca. 100+ and the Didache, ca. 100. The production, spread and
                                thoughtfulness about these works sets the marker of "no earlier than" 110,
                                but as you will see below I think the 120's is better.

                                Also here, you rightly note (in your other note) that Crossan thinks Luke is
                                about the same time as Matthew and before John. He also holds that Acts
                                belongs in the tier from 120 to 150. Hence he separates Luke and Acts by
                                20+ years. I disagree about the order in relationship to John. I think
                                Luke and Acts were written closer together. More below.
                                >
                                >[MG]:
                                >> If you're so intent on a late GLk, why not admit that it's most
                                >> unlikely that he would have been familiar with the more obscure
                                >> and hard-to-find texts that you mention, and yet be unfamiliar
                                >> with the readily-available GMt?
                                >
                                >[GR]:
                                >> "Obscure" and "hard to find" is our situation. I see no reason to
                                >> foist this on Luke's time.
                                >
                                >Not sure why you're arguing this, since you've seemingly granted
                                >the point of the argument - namely, that your dating implies that
                                >Luke knew GMt - but I particularly had Secret Mark in mind. This
                                >was one of the dozen items you listed as being probably known to
                                >Luke if he was writing ca 120-130. If there was a "Secret Mark",
                                >it's not anachronistic to suggest that it would have been "hard to
                                >find". Clement's purported letter indicates exactly that.

                                Let me clarify, that list of items I think that G. Luke accomplishes is
                                based in "many" and some of those texts are utilized (as above) and some of
                                those texts he's aware of at some level (hearsay, news about, some
                                missionary heard a sermon based on and told him about, etc.) In the case of
                                Secret Mark, as you will note Dom dates it in relationship to extant Mark.
                                I'm not sure about that, all I'm suggesting is that this is prior to Luke,
                                one of the "many," one of the pieces of that is known of as the purported
                                letter of Clement suggests. So, this one doesn't establish a late date, but
                                does belong in the "many" that Luke was in some way dealing with. Two
                                things about Secret Mark are straightened out by Luke. Number one I'll talk
                                about here, for the other see below: Secret Mark per Dom's interpretation
                                poses a different sort of secret, nude baptismal rite. Luke, interested in
                                "orderliness" is interested among other things in getting JTB lined up with
                                Jesus per the Markan story and the Baptismal rite ordered with it in
                                relationship to the quite open family practice that we know from Paul. This
                                baptismal practice is the non-secretive, but rather the quite open formula
                                we find in the Baptismal Credo which Luke is supporting via his
                                reaffirmation of the Markan JTB baptizing Jesus and God's **clear**
                                annunciation at that time (see Luke 3:21-22). This relationship between JTB
                                and Jesus isn't presented in John as it had been presented in Mark. And
                                then with the foundational initiation rite being practiced in a non-standard
                                way that went against the Pauline practice and against the open Didache
                                practice and the clear words of the Credo. This is an example of the
                                intertextual reading I'm suggesting. And this puts Secret Mark in the
                                picture not as a desk item, necessarily, but as a news item with which Luke
                                is dealing with in relationship to the other issues in other texts. So
                                again... post John, Didache, Baptismal Credo in regard to this issue.
                                >
                                >> I have no idea why you refer to "vague time of strife" refering
                                >> to Bar Kochba.
                                >
                                >Perhaps I should have said "time of vague strife". This is where I
                                >think your reasoning might be anachronistic. WE know that the Bar
                                >Kochba revolt occurred after your dating of GLk, but LUKE wouldn't
                                >have known that when he was writing GLk. So what do you suppose was
                                >occurring in the Holy Land _exactly_ (no generalizing, please) that
                                >moved Luke to write his gospel at that particular point in time when
                                >there was as yet no Bar Kochba in sight? (Or was there? I'd be happy
                                >to learn what there was about the period 120-130 that makes that a
                                >good candidate for dating GLk.)

                                Let me work at this starting with intextuality issues and then put down some
                                historical markers in regards to strife. First with Secret Mark there's
                                "the orderliness" issue and then there's "the secretiveness" issue. Second
                                we have 2 story patterns between Mark and John and one trouble there is that
                                the story of the founder figure isn't "straight." Third with Revelation
                                (ca. late in Domitian's reign) there's all this talk of Rome as "the Beast"
                                and "the end is coming." Fourth and related to this there is martyriological
                                talk going on. So for now, let's add this up... the founder figure whose
                                story isn't straight was a fellow done in by a Roman governor. Some of
                                these followers are into secret rites. There's talk among them about the
                                overthrow of the world order. Some of these folks adamantly refuse to bow
                                the knee and pay taxes to the emperor and some are quite willing to be
                                martyrs for "their Lord" of "the Kingdom of God." That is a dangerous mix!

                                Now then, if Eusebius' stories have some truth, then at the end of his
                                career Domitian lightened up and didn't execute Jude's grandchildren. Next
                                Nerva (96-98) relieved the extra tax burden on "the Jews." So there was a
                                respite, but ca. 109 we find Tacitas writing in his "Annals" about the
                                followers of "Chrestus" who was slain by Pilate being blamed by Nero for the
                                fire. And he calls these folks members of "a superstition." Ca. 112 we
                                have Pliny writing to Trajan and Trajan writing back about whether to kill
                                these Christians and the word "superstition" comes up again. And then we
                                know of a Jewish uprising in Palestine and the Diaspora that Trajan dealt
                                with "mercilessly" towards the very end of his reign (Trajan 98-117).
                                Further we know that this suppression didn't end the unrest, so it was
                                brewing in the 120's and broke out in an open war in Palestine 132-135.
                                Notably as the uprisings of late Trajan's time were **not** only in
                                Palestine, but around and about, then the danger of a successful uprising in
                                Palestine would spell for serious trouble in the Parthian frontline defense
                                region and also possibly spell for trouble in lots of other places. So it
                                took Hadrian, former legate to Syria, 3 years to put this down. He did so.
                                He banned "the Jews" from Jerusalem. He thus truly ended Israel's
                                existence. He renamed Jerusalem "Aelia Capitolina" and a temple of Jupiter
                                was built.

                                So, I see that era from late Trajan on into Hadrian's reign of a time of
                                uprisings and brooding uprisings. I read intertextually based on these
                                datings of Christians who don't have their story straight about their,
                                executed by the Romans as a trouble maker, leader. The Romans are writing
                                about them as being a new fangled superstition dangerous to the state.
                                These folks in various writings talk about "secrets rites," Rome as "the
                                Beast," willingness to be martyrs. And all of this has come to the capitol
                                city and even survived what Nero had done and what Domitian had done. I
                                think Luke in the 120's was dealing with all this literature and with this
                                "brooding" and with the need both to establish Christianity as not being a
                                superstition (rather a religion based in Judaism which was considered "a
                                real," ancient religion), but also to distinguish Christianity as being
                                rooted not in a figure who was a political enemy of Rome, but one who really
                                was for peace and good order. In the best Greek yet he wrote this more
                                "orderly account" based in knowledge of, in some shape, fashion or form, of
                                this "many" and these circumstances in the broader Roman world in the 120's.
                                As I have said before, I think Acts may be before 130, but I suspect that
                                it might be either during or after Bar Kochba to, in part, drive the point
                                home that "the Great Missionary"... a Roman citizen... unjustly accused by
                                that bad old Jewish leadership... took up his ****Roman rights***** and
                                through perilous journey made it to Rome in chains, but in peace and was
                                quite alive and well and preaching this peaceful gospel of "the Kingdom of
                                God" in the great city of Rome. So, yes, I see Luke in the 120's and most
                                probably Acts in the 130's.

                                How's that for some specifics? (Just as an aside, as we previously talked
                                about, I think Luke's Acts story is a wondrous piece of story telling.
                                Historically I don't have a clue about it's accuracy, hence our earlier
                                dispute about whether Paul ever got to Rome. Clement is before this, in my
                                view, and Clement isn't clear either. But in terms of story... Paul... a
                                peaceful, very alive prisoner doing this open preaching that, pardon my
                                Southern English, ***ain't causing no revolt against Rome right there in the
                                city of Rome. No secret cult this. No martyrs cult this. Not a confused
                                cult this. No revolutionary cult this. An ancient religion... distinct
                                from those other revolting Jews who are talking about a spiritual kingdom...
                                but not based on ever new revelations (those are always disorganizing and
                                potentially dangerous)... but with good old earthly words by a guy who was
                                **really** saying "love your enemies!" What Luke presents is a nice and
                                safe ancient and open religion that wants to settle into the Roman Empire,
                                even Rome itself.

                                Based on this, I think the date of the 80's or 90's or even 100's is
                                incorrect. I think we have to talk in terms of these texts, in terms of
                                Tacitas and Pliny, in terms of Trajan and on into Hadrian's reign. 125
                                sounds like a fine year for Luke, to me!

                                Gordon Raynal
                                Inman, SC
                                >
                                >Mike Grondin
                                >Mt. Clemens, MI
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                                >
                                >To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                >To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                >List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                >
                                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • Stephen C. Carlson
                                ... I m afraid my quotation of Tuckett on Q being a negative theory was not clear enough, because Tuckett is not some Q-ophobe but the foremost defender of Q
                                Message 15 of 25 , Apr 29, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Gordon Raynal wrote:
                                  >>The key here is "If you are willing to grant Q's existence." What does
                                  >>it is mean to grant Q's existence? There's no direct manuscript evidence
                                  >>of Q. Rather, Q is an inference from a set of premises and observations
                                  >>of textual patterns in the synoptic gospels. Now, Christopher M. Tuckett
                                  >>in his chapter, "The Existence of Q," in his Q AND THE HISTORY OF EARLY
                                  >>CHRISTIANITY states: "At one level, the Q hypothesis is simply a negative
                                  >>theory, denying the possibility that one evangelist made direct use of
                                  >>the work of the other." (p. 4).
                                  >
                                  >That there is no direct mss evidence is hardly a big issue in these studies.
                                  > Such applies to the redactional study of practically every document we
                                  >have: the wonder story collection underneath Mark and Signs to John. Signs
                                  >to extant John through several layers. Study of the Corinthian
                                  >correspondence. Etc. Etc. Etc. As for this **only** being a negative
                                  >theory, that is balderdash. A lot of very smart folks have written very
                                  >thoughtful and extensive pieces on Q. To grant Q is no big issue when we
                                  >have an extant sayings Gospel, when we have reference to "the Sayings of the
                                  >Lord," and when one will spend some serious time reading the thing and work
                                  >with it as a document.

                                  I'm afraid my quotation of Tuckett on Q being a "negative theory" was not clear
                                  enough, because Tuckett is not some Q-ophobe but the foremost defender of Q
                                  in the UK. He has written thoughtful and extensive pieces on Q, including the
                                  book I cited, and he has certainly spent some serious time reading Q and working
                                  with it as a document. No, what Tuckett means is that the existence of Q is only
                                  arrived at by a process of elimination, based on evidence against its alternatives,
                                  not by positive evidence such as manuscripts of Q. Because Q is an inference, its
                                  validity as a hypothesis is contigent on certain assumptions and premises built
                                  into that process of elimination, and accepting Q entails accepting those assumptions.
                                  If one is not aware of those assumptions, then one risks self-contradiction.

                                  >This idea of constraints for you Stephen is a strong argument. It is not at
                                  >all for me. Why? Well lets say, for sake of some fun, that if I'm planting
                                  >some bulbs today in my yard and come upon Q in an amphora in my front yard,
                                  >...

                                  Let's stop right here. Here, you are explaining your position by assuming
                                  that there is positive evidence for Q, not merely the negative evidence
                                  against the alternatives to Q as is the case here. They are not equivalent
                                  at all, and the distinction is crucial. Your assumption right here glosses
                                  over the basis for how we know of Q today. The existence of Q is not a
                                  brute fact that we have to deal with but a conclusion currently believed
                                  by many to be the most reasonable explanation of other brute facts, based
                                  on certain assumptions. If you want to controvert those assumptions --
                                  and still accept Q -- you have to go back to the drawing board and either
                                  make your own logical case for Q's existence different from the present
                                  arguments or come upon that amphora with Q in it.

                                  >It is
                                  >**very** important not to conflate concerns about the 2DH with the issues
                                  >about sources and creativity with them. These are related issues, but not
                                  >the same issue.

                                  That's not happening at all. I'm not objecting to your idea that Luke in 120s
                                  used Mark and Q but not Matthew because Q didn't really exist. No, I'm
                                  objecting to that idea because it undercuts one of the grounds for positing
                                  Q's existence in the first place: that Luke did not have access to Matthew.

                                  >So, **if** you lay down the 2DH concerns for awhile, go on and read Q and
                                  >Mark, I'll bet you could come up with a pretty inovative "Gospel of Stephen"
                                  >right here in 2004. And I'll bet that even though you know Matthew and Luke
                                  >you can be innovative and combine these materials that puts your stamp on
                                  >these sources.

                                  Again this assumes that Q is a brute fact that is not contigent on certain
                                  assumptions. Besides, I'll bet my "Gospel of Stephen" will get a similar
                                  reception as my namesake's discourse in Acts. :-)

                                  >I'll leave the last word to you about Q. What I wish folks would do is
                                  >spend some serious time with it as a document. Read it as a whole. Work on
                                  >the redactional issues. Think about the social history implied. Think
                                  >about it as a form of expression in relation to other forms of expression.
                                  >Our good friend Mark Goodacre has made his case. Mack, the J. Sem., the
                                  >Intl. Q project have variously made their cases.

                                  What I wish people would do is that, if they are going to use Q, they not forget
                                  or ignore the reasons why Q is hypothesized to exist. I am not those who
                                  object to Kloppenborg's stratification of Q merely for building hypothesis upon
                                  hypothesis, as some have criticized him for doing. Kloppenborg is correct:
                                  scholarship is all about building new hypotheses on old ones, and the important
                                  issue is whether the building is done right. Kloppenborg's stratification was very
                                  careful in this regard, but I'm afraid that Mack's acceptance of Q plus a Luke
                                  that is 30-40 years later than Matthew is not example of doing it right.

                                  Stephen Carlson

                                  --
                                  Stephen C. Carlson,
                                  mailto:scarlson@...
                                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                                • Ron Price
                                  ... Joe, There are lots of arguments for a written sayings source which is not Q. Here are a few of them. (1) It should be clear that Luke knew Matthew (thus
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Apr 29, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Ron Price wrote:

                                    >> [if the Third Evangelist was acquainted with Matthew]
                                    >> Q disappears, but not the idea of an early written sayings source
                                    >> used by both Matthew and Luke.

                                    Joseph Weaks replied:

                                    > There are some arguments for early written sayings
                                    > sources outside of the Q hypothesis, but not many.

                                    Joe,

                                    There are lots of arguments for a written sayings source which is not Q.
                                    Here are a few of them.

                                    (1) It should be clear that Luke knew Matthew (thus ruling out Q) because
                                    (a) The "many" of Lk 1:1 could otherwise only refer to Mark, which was the
                                    only other gospel in existence at the time. This would obviously be
                                    nonsense. Thus the "many" is best explained as referring to Mark and
                                    Matthew. The "many" was a self-deprecating exaggeration, for Luke was aware
                                    that some people might criticize the production of yet another gospel.
                                    (b) There are hundreds of minor agreements between Matt and Luke, plus a
                                    few major agreements.
                                    (c) The "level place" of the Sermon of the Plain, which only makes sense
                                    as a deliberate contrast to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount.
                                    (d) The sentence: "If you are the Son of God..." is obscure in Q. Why
                                    would any reader think Jesus was the Son of God? In its original context in
                                    Matthew, the sentence followed Jesus' declaration as God's Son at the
                                    baptism.

                                    (2) But there is still a case for an early sayings source.
                                    (a) In some sayings in the double tradition, Luke has the more primitive
                                    version.
                                    (b) There are many doublets in Matthew, and many in Luke, which can best
                                    be explained as arising from the use of both Mark and an early sayings
                                    source.
                                    (c) There are lots of sayings in Matthew which are too primitive-looking
                                    to have been coined by Matthew. But it is also extremely unlikely that they
                                    could have been transmitted faithfully for 55 years via oral tradition.
                                    (d) Papias' reference to 'TA LOGIA', which most likely refers to a sayings
                                    document written, not in Greek, but in the local language.

                                    The Three Source Theory is set out in more detail on my Web site. In spite
                                    of promoting it for several years on both Synoptic-L and XTalk, no Markan
                                    priority supporter has yet provided a single good argument against it.

                                    The above is based on the following dates for the canonical gospels:

                                    Mark ca. 70 CE
                                    Matthew ca. 85 CE
                                    Luke (First Edition) ca. 95 CE
                                    John (First Edition) ca. 105 CE

                                    > ..... in the absence of Q, the arguments for an early form of Thomas
                                    > break down.

                                    Fine. My stance is that GTh originated in the second century.

                                    Ron Price

                                    Derbyshire, UK

                                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                  • Ron Price
                                    ... You catch on quickly! :-) Ron Price Derbyshire, UK Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Apr 29, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Stephen Carlson wrote:

                                      >>> .....if the Third Evangelist
                                      >>> was acquainted with Matthew, then Q is disappears in a puff of logic.
                                      >>
                                      >> Technically this is correct. But I can't let this statement go without
                                      >> comment as it is quite misleading. (Is no one listening to me?)
                                      >> Q disappears, but not the idea of an early written sayings source used by
                                      >> both Matthew and Luke.
                                      >
                                      > Should I have said "Q as we know it"? :-)

                                      You catch on quickly! :-)

                                      Ron Price

                                      Derbyshire, UK

                                      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                    • Mike Grondin
                                      Gordon- I think it s fair to say that your reasoning about GLk proceeds first from the assumption that the dating of _other_ texts (e.g., John I, G.Mary, the
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Apr 30, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Gordon-

                                        I think it's fair to say that your reasoning about GLk proceeds
                                        first from the assumption that the dating of _other_ texts (e.g.,
                                        John I, G.Mary, the Didache) is relatively certain, and then that
                                        it's possible to ascertain with some certainty that GLk constituted
                                        some sort of intentional (as opposed to accidental) response to
                                        those other texts. But just as you don't find Crossan's reasoning
                                        persuasive when he claims that what he calls 'John I' played off
                                        the passion and resurrection account of GLk, I don't find your own
                                        interpretations of GLk vis-a-vis your own favored set of supposedly
                                        earlier documents persuasive. I don't think that such generalized,
                                        "impressionistic" reasoning as you favor is really capable of
                                        presenting what others would regard as a strong case, but at least
                                        you've probably succeeded through the course of many lengthy notes
                                        in giving a feel for where you're coming from.

                                        Mike Grondin
                                        Mt. Clemens, MI
                                      • Gordon Raynal
                                        ... Hi Mike, That is fine. A few comments. First I note you asked for some specific historical markers in your last post and you chose not to comment on
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Apr 30, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          >Gordon-
                                          >
                                          >I think it's fair to say that your reasoning about GLk proceeds
                                          >first from the assumption that the dating of _other_ texts (e.g.,
                                          >John I, G.Mary, the Didache) is relatively certain, and then that
                                          >it's possible to ascertain with some certainty that GLk constituted
                                          >some sort of intentional (as opposed to accidental) response to
                                          >those other texts. But just as you don't find Crossan's reasoning
                                          >persuasive when he claims that what he calls 'John I' played off
                                          >the passion and resurrection account of GLk, I don't find your own
                                          >interpretations of GLk vis-a-vis your own favored set of supposedly
                                          >earlier documents persuasive. I don't think that such generalized,
                                          >"impressionistic" reasoning as you favor is really capable of
                                          >presenting what others would regard as a strong case, but at least
                                          >you've probably succeeded through the course of many lengthy notes
                                          >in giving a feel for where you're coming from.

                                          Hi Mike,

                                          That is fine. A few comments. First I note you asked for some specific
                                          historical markers in your last post and you chose not to comment on those
                                          here. What I hope is that you will think about those markers in
                                          relationship to intertextuality and in relationship to your reading of
                                          Luke-Acts. As what I've presented in these posts is a dramatically
                                          different reading than the old views that Luke and Matthew belong to the
                                          80-90's and hence deal with the aftermath of the first Jewish War and in the
                                          case of Luke, don't deal with such as John nor Revelation nor Mary nor the
                                          Baptismal Credo nor the Didache, then I hope you'll at least take some time
                                          and re-read those texts in relationship to one another and in relationship
                                          to those markers I provided (thoughts about Tacitas, Pliny, the uprising in
                                          Trajan's era, the issue of transition to Hadrian and his situation and what
                                          he did, most specifically. Read this selection of core texts with that in
                                          mind as you read Luke-Acts). If you don't want to, then that's fine. But I
                                          must say that my only response back can be your rejection is
                                          "impressionistic." As I just wrote to Karel, I think one should spend some
                                          time thinking about alternative models because it is educational. You might
                                          still find you reject my views as a whole, but it also might work to raise
                                          some new thoughts about what this literature has to offer and you might
                                          agree in parts. That is what I hope this alternate suggestion might do for
                                          you and others.


                                          Lastly, thank you for the last comments.

                                          Gordon Raynal
                                          Inman, SC
                                        • Linda & Ernest Pennells
                                          I admire your tenacious crusading spirit, Gordon, and welcome the provocation of your thoughts. I guess our spectacles were made to slightly different
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Apr 30, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I admire your tenacious crusading spirit, Gordon, and welcome the
                                            provocation of your thoughts. I guess our spectacles were made to slightly
                                            different prescriptions. On the historical validity of the Gospels you ask
                                            for independent records to confirm it happened. On the morass of
                                            source-criticism, I ask for the missing 90% of the puzzle before I'm ready
                                            to accept working conclusions.
                                            [Gordon]
                                            >smart birds, those loons... they know how to dive and finds things under
                                            water that folks who just keep glancing at the surface will never see:)!)<

                                            Why else would the loon be chosen as the national bird of Canada (speaking
                                            as an imported Briton)?
                                            [Gordon]
                                            >These Hebrew/Jewish folks had a long, fine tradition of taking old texts
                                            and editing them and making something new out of old shards.<

                                            Agreed, and layers of shared tradition are clearly evident in NT texts.
                                            But as to who got them from where, I am reminded of the old chestnut: Which
                                            came first, the chicken or the egg?
                                            Your rejoinders are suggestive, but don't carry a legible date stamp. Acts
                                            28 does. Having opted out of the source-criticism imbroglio I forfeit the
                                            right to pontificate about dates, and must be content to live with
                                            broadband options. Apart from John's vision of a new Jerusalem descending
                                            from heaven, and his heavy-heavenly-artillery counter offensive against
                                            Rome, the NT conspicuously lacks acknowledgement of the earth shattering
                                            events of 70. For me, that deserves far more weight than documentary
                                            hypotheses constructed on the shifting sands of oral tradition.

                                            Those comments on intertextuality do offer further food for thought.

                                            The comparative study of ancient texts is - or course - a legitimate
                                            discipline. I just question the seat of honour some of the resulting
                                            hypotheses have been granted in HJ research.


                                            Regards,

                                            Ernie Pennells
                                            220 - 50 Songhees Road, Victoria BC, Canada V9A 7J4
                                            http://www.lukeacts.com
                                            Tel: (250) 381 5674
                                          • Gordon Raynal
                                            Hi Stephen, ... Thank you for the clarification. Again, this is hardly news and it applies to basically all the work done on redactional layers of practically
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Apr 30, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Hi Stephen,

                                              >I'm afraid my quotation of Tuckett on Q being a "negative theory" was not clear
                                              >enough, because Tuckett is not some Q-ophobe but the foremost defender of Q
                                              >in the UK. He has written thoughtful and extensive pieces on Q, including the
                                              >book I cited, and he has certainly spent some serious time reading Q and working
                                              >with it as a document. No, what Tuckett means is that the existence of Q is only
                                              >arrived at by a process of elimination, based on evidence against its alternatives,
                                              >not by positive evidence such as manuscripts of Q. Because Q is an inference, its
                                              >validity as a hypothesis is contigent on certain assumptions and premises built
                                              >into that process of elimination, and accepting Q entails accepting those
                                              >assumptions.
                                              >If one is not aware of those assumptions, then one risks self-contradiction.

                                              Thank you for the clarification. Again, this is hardly news and it applies
                                              to basically all the work done on redactional layers of practically every
                                              text in the Bible. We don't have Isaiah 1,2,3. We don't have J,E,P and D.
                                              We don't have a copy of Signs or the Miracle Catena. Hence my words, "no big
                                              deal." The case for Q is actually a more obvious case than some others as
                                              we have 2 documents that use and modify according to plotting and
                                              theological emphases some core material that is not in Mark. By parallel,
                                              work on deciphering how Jeremiah ought to be thought about has long been a
                                              big issue and now that the have the DSS we finally have a shorter and
                                              different version of Jeremiah. Maybe one of these days someone will find Q.
                                              Then our friend Mark will have to write his new book: "Oops, the Case for
                                              Q:)!" But til then, yes, we are working with a hypothetical document. What
                                              comes to mind by way of analogy only is that astronomers know claim to have
                                              identified a good many stars with planets around them. They can't see the
                                              planets even with the Hubble, but they posit them by the wobble. By analogy
                                              all this redactional work is the hunt for wobbles:)! Maybe someday we'll see
                                              an actual planet... maybe someday we'll see an actual Q mss.
                                              >
                                              >>This idea of constraints for you Stephen is a strong argument. It is not at
                                              >>all for me. Why? Well lets say, for sake of some fun, that if I'm planting
                                              >>some bulbs today in my yard and come upon Q in an amphora in my front yard,
                                              >>...
                                              >
                                              >Let's stop right here. Here, you are explaining your position by assuming
                                              >that there is positive evidence for Q, not merely the negative evidence
                                              >against the alternatives to Q as is the case here. They are not equivalent
                                              >at all, and the distinction is crucial. Your assumption right here glosses
                                              >over the basis for how we know of Q today. The existence of Q is not a
                                              >brute fact that we have to deal with but a conclusion currently believed
                                              >by many to be the most reasonable explanation of other brute facts, based
                                              >on certain assumptions. If you want to controvert those assumptions --
                                              >and still accept Q -- you have to go back to the drawing board and either
                                              >make your own logical case for Q's existence different from the present
                                              >arguments or come upon that amphora with Q in it.

                                              I have never claimed it is "a brute fact." In these notes about Luke I have
                                              asked people to work from the assumption that Q is a document and therefore
                                              work with the construction we have. If you will re-read these notes on this
                                              subject line, I have also asked to lay aside this concern and so suggested
                                              that folks who follow Farrer/Goodacre to think about L-A in terms of those
                                              other late documents. This outlay about Luke and Acts (120's-130's) is not
                                              fundamentally dependent on Q or no Q and hence my words about leaving this
                                              aside to focus on this subject. Where I think Q is helpful here is that
                                              ***if*** we accept it then we can understand ***part of what*** Luke
                                              accomplishes over and against G.Thomas 2, John 1-20:23, 30-31, Secret Mark,
                                              G.Mary. One could also account that with Farrer, but I think Q makes what
                                              Luke accomplishes here more emphatic by working with (***again if one will
                                              accept Q***) a widely known, widely respected, widely used document that I
                                              am positing would be very familiar to those who would receive this work.
                                              >
                                              >>It is
                                              >>**very** important not to conflate concerns about the 2DH with the issues
                                              >>about sources and creativity with them. These are related issues, but not
                                              >>the same issue.
                                              >
                                              >That's not happening at all. I'm not objecting to your idea that Luke in 120s
                                              >used Mark and Q but not Matthew because Q didn't really exist. No, I'm
                                              >objecting to that idea because it undercuts one of the grounds for positing
                                              >Q's existence in the first place: that Luke did not have access to Matthew.

                                              Okay, let's stop here:)! What is the absolute minimal basis for positing Q
                                              on the 2DH theory? Simply this: Luke didn't copy Matthew, but copied Q.
                                              Bottom line that is it. Now you make think distance in time bodes against
                                              Q, that Luke knew of Matthew bodes against Q, etc. But all that one has to
                                              uphold is that Luke didn't copy that common material from Matthew to uphold
                                              Q.

                                              Just for fun... let's say the NT Canon had Q, Matthew and Luke:)! Would
                                              Mark vanish as a theoretical document in "a puff of logic?" It would be
                                              easy to say that one copied the other and that might be correct. But one
                                              could also posit a common written source and that might be correct if
                                              there's no copying going on. Now, would the uncertainty that the outer
                                              edges bode against some level of confidence in this hypothetical Mark? Not
                                              in my view. Not if one can show the basic story connections and plot flow.
                                              One might want to say that it's just easier to work with what we have and
                                              that copying the copying/editting idea is just easier. But then someone
                                              digs up Mark and oops:)!

                                              Just one of the things that convinces me about Q is the Q sermon. The core
                                              contents there are either directly or thematically used in a number of ways
                                              across several sources. The sayings themselves are aphorisms and I don't
                                              think Jesus preached them as a sermon. I think the Q author gathered them
                                              in this form. I think the Didache gathered a core of these sayings in a
                                              Decalogue type form. I think Ep. James "Way of Wisdom" and Galatians "Way
                                              of the Spirit" are theologically and thematically related to these sayings.
                                              I think what Matthew and Luke do with this sermonic form shows creativity
                                              not based in Luke copying Matthew, but each working from the common Q
                                              sermon. Now had Luke copied Matthew, then one thing I don't think he would
                                              have doused is that extended list of beatitudes. I especially don't think
                                              he would have doused "Blessed are the peacemakers" as this is so essential
                                              to how Luke frames his story (from the words about what JTB will open up in
                                              introducing Jesus, to Angelic hymn, to the doubling of the mission (12 and
                                              70), to Jesus' words on entering Jerusalem, to his first words when he meets
                                              with the 12 in the upper room). This one example and then thinking about the
                                              redactional moves across Q, itself, are one strong suggestion for Q's
                                              existence and Luke and Matthew's independent use thereof.

                                              >Again this assumes that Q is a brute fact that is not contigent on certain
                                              >assumptions.

                                              And no again... it assumes that I'm working from the hypothetical document.


                                              Besides, I'll bet my "Gospel of Stephen" will get a similar
                                              >reception as my namesake's discourse in Acts. :-)

                                              Oh, give it a try... you might be surprised:)!

                                              >What I wish people would do is that, if they are going to use Q, they not forget
                                              >or ignore the reasons why Q is hypothesized to exist. I am not those who
                                              >object to Kloppenborg's stratification of Q merely for building hypothesis upon
                                              >hypothesis, as some have criticized him for doing. Kloppenborg is correct:
                                              >scholarship is all about building new hypotheses on old ones, and the important
                                              >issue is whether the building is done right. Kloppenborg's stratification was very
                                              >careful in this regard, but I'm afraid that Mack's acceptance of Q plus a Luke
                                              >that is 30-40 years later than Matthew is not example of doing it right.

                                              I'm glad you cite the strengths of K's work and the value for thinking about
                                              not just Q, but that it shows definite strata. What actually interests me
                                              the most for these questions of intertextuality is Q1. As I have said many
                                              times before, I don't make my case for HJ based on Q. I base it in Mark,
                                              the parables and associated aphorisms, Ep. James 1-3, I Cor. 1 and "the Way
                                              of Life" in the Didache. Q1 and GTh.1 are icing on the cake. If they go,
                                              okay. If we have them, okay.

                                              But again... on this subject line... as I have written to several folks I
                                              hope folks will lay this Q question aside... work with it either way and
                                              think about this model I've proposed.

                                              Gordon Raynal
                                              Inman, SC
                                            • Mark Goodacre
                                              ... Maybe one of these days someone will find an early edition of the Gospel of Luke with its bibliography in tact. No mention of Q, but there, in black and
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Apr 30, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On 30 Apr 2004 at 13:09, Gordon Raynal wrote:

                                                > Maybe one of these days someone will find Q.
                                                > Then our friend Mark will have to write his new book: "Oops, the Case
                                                > for Q:)!"

                                                Maybe one of these days someone will find an early edition of the
                                                Gospel of Luke with its bibliography in tact. No mention of Q, but
                                                there, in black and white, just underneath Mark's Gospel he lists
                                                Matthew. O dear; then our friends will have to write their new
                                                books like "Burying Q".

                                                It seems to the me that the difficulty with this conversation,
                                                Gordon, is that you are doing some brain-storming, some "What about
                                                this?" and some "How about that?" It can be fun, it can be
                                                interesting and in many ways is the kind of thinking that can make
                                                academic study interesting. On email lists like this, it is where
                                                much of real interest happens. The reason Steve Davies was always so
                                                interesting was that he was prepared to shoot from the hip, to think
                                                outside of the box and so on. It's one of the reasons that Xtalk is
                                                still the best e-list around in our area by far.

                                                But I think there comes a point after the initial brain-storming
                                                where one has to say "OK; what are the problems with my proposals?"
                                                Stephen is pointing to an enormous problem for your basic proposal,
                                                that if Luke is written in 120-130, it is simply incredible that he
                                                does not also know the Gospel of Matthew. You are not going to
                                                persuade anyone that Luke, writing in 120-130, knows the Gospel of
                                                Mary and the like if you are not willing to grant that he knows the
                                                Gospel of Matthew! Matthew is the one book in antiquity that
                                                actually looks like Luke, a reworked Gospel of Mark with Birth
                                                Narratives, a Resurrection story and lots of extra teaching in
                                                between, much of which is in verbatim agreement between the two
                                                documents. That Luke should have written a book closely resembling
                                                Matthew in the 120s, featuring both macro- and micro- level
                                                similarities between the two and yet be independent of it simply
                                                beggars belief. Yes, of course you might say that he knows Matthew
                                                but chooses to use Q instead, but this simply begs the question given
                                                that the standard case for the Q hypothesis is based on the
                                                impossibility of Luke having known and used Matthew.

                                                I think the proper response to Stephen's serious questions is not
                                                simply to repeat the brainstorming. We are on to the next stage now,
                                                the stage when the brainstroming is over and the actual studying,
                                                testing, nuancing of your proposals is underway. In one key respect,
                                                your 120s Luke is found wanting. It is simply not an adequate
                                                response to reiterate the initial proposals again. In my experience,
                                                Stephen has a sharp mind and a careful eye and he has often seen
                                                things that others have missed. You need to respond seriously to
                                                Stephen's objections if you are going to make your proposals
                                                plausible.

                                                In other words, I'm all in favour of wide-ranging, interesting,
                                                enjoyable brain-storming, but once the brainstorming is done, one
                                                cannot defend it by reiterating it. At least not if you want to
                                                persuade anyone, and that is presumably the goal here. You need to
                                                engage critically on the key points of the proposals.

                                                My own rule of thumb is the following: try to understand your
                                                opponent's position so well that you feel you could make their own
                                                case for them better than they can. Try thinking through their
                                                positions; think of arguments they have mised; look for evidence
                                                for their view that they are not taking seriously enough; anticipate
                                                objections that they might make. Once you are at that stage, you are
                                                ready to engage with them critically.

                                                Mark
                                                -----------------------------
                                                Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                                Graduate Institute for Theology & Religion
                                                Dept of Theology
                                                University of Birmingham
                                                Elmfield House, Bristol Road tel.+44 121 414 7512
                                                Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

                                                http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
                                                http://NTGateway.com
                                              • Bob Schacht
                                                ... WRONG. This is not the absolute minimal basis for positing Q. I think in formal logic what you are trying to do is called something like the fallacy of
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Apr 30, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  At 01:09 PM 4/30/2004 -0400, Gordon Raynal wrote:
                                                  >...Okay, let's stop here:)! What is the absolute minimal basis for positing Q
                                                  >on the 2DH theory? Simply this: Luke didn't copy Matthew, but copied Q.

                                                  WRONG. This is not the absolute minimal basis for positing Q. I think in
                                                  formal logic what you are trying to do is called something like the fallacy
                                                  of affirming the consequent. As Stephen has so patiently pointed out, and
                                                  as you have so consistently ignored, weaseled around, denied, and
                                                  filibustered, the minimal basis for positing Q *requires* a number of
                                                  assumptions that you are not willing to accept. Your obfuscations on this
                                                  issue make me wonder if you really understand the Q hypothesis at all?

                                                  >Bottom line that is it. ...

                                                  Bottom line is that the logic of the lawyer (Stephen) and the trained
                                                  logician (Mike) have exposed the fallacies in your argument. You can dance
                                                  around all you like, but your dance has become more amusing than
                                                  convincing, IMHO.

                                                  Bob

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

                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Gordon Raynal
                                                  Hi Ernie, ... Thank you very much. I think its helpful to search the various patterns of thought and connection out. I m glad you re willing to think through
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Apr 30, 2004
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Hi Ernie,

                                                    >I admire your tenacious crusading spirit, Gordon, and welcome the
                                                    >provocation of your thoughts.

                                                    Thank you very much. I think its helpful to search the various patterns of
                                                    thought and connection out. I'm glad you're willing to think through some of
                                                    these issues from this vantage point.

                                                    I guess our spectacles were made to slightly
                                                    >different prescriptions. On the historical validity of the Gospels you ask
                                                    >for independent records to confirm it happened.

                                                    Yes, I do. And I've said many times I'm not a historical minimalist out of
                                                    some orniness or out of some huge theoretical position. I simply don't
                                                    think the theological/ethical writings we have provide much historical data,
                                                    per se. I'm not at all a minimalist when it comes to theology, ethics and
                                                    the value for character and communal formation this literature offers!


                                                    On the morass of
                                                    >source-criticism, I ask for the missing 90% of the puzzle before I'm ready
                                                    >to accept working conclusions.


                                                    Well, til we dig up some more stuff you aren't going to get very far:)!
                                                    Seriously, compared to actual historical detail proposing and tracing out
                                                    literary layers, theological expressions and developments and social
                                                    formation developments is easier than ascertaining historical details. Of
                                                    course we can only work from theoretical models. Of course we're always
                                                    going to live with various ones. All the better actually, because such
                                                    offers different vantage points of reflection and analysis. Except for
                                                    those who absolutely insist "my way or the highway" there can even be
                                                    complimentary findings in different models. So, hey... move that up a
                                                    bit... say to 40% and you'll have some more fun:)!

                                                    >[Gordon]
                                                    >>smart birds, those loons... they know how to dive and finds things under
                                                    >water that folks who just keep glancing at the surface will never see:)!)<
                                                    >
                                                    >Why else would the loon be chosen as the national bird of Canada (speaking
                                                    >as an imported Briton)?

                                                    Glad you enjoyed the play:)!

                                                    >
                                                    >The comparative study of ancient texts is - or course - a legitimate
                                                    >discipline. I just question the seat of honour some of the resulting
                                                    >hypotheses have been granted in HJ research.

                                                    Well you can always go with Bultmann:)!

                                                    thanks again for the note!
                                                    Gordon Raynal
                                                    Inman, SC
                                                  • Bob Schacht
                                                    ... This, especially the last sentences, do not constitute an adequate line of reasoning, and amount to little more than an Amen post (giving the Amen to
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , May 1, 2004
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      At 03:00 PM 4/30/2004 -0700, I wrote impatiently:
                                                      >At 01:09 PM 4/30/2004 -0400, Gordon Raynal wrote:
                                                      >>...Okay, let's stop here:)! What is the absolute minimal basis for
                                                      >>positing Q
                                                      >>on the 2DH theory? Simply this: Luke didn't copy Matthew, but copied Q.
                                                      >
                                                      >WRONG. This is not the absolute minimal basis for positing Q. ...
                                                      >
                                                      >>Bottom line that is it. ...
                                                      >
                                                      >Bottom line is that the logic of the lawyer (Stephen) and the trained
                                                      >logician (Mike) have exposed the fallacies in your argument. You can dance
                                                      >around all you like, but your dance has become more amusing than
                                                      >convincing, IMHO.

                                                      This, especially the last sentences, do not constitute an adequate line of
                                                      reasoning, and amount to little more than an "Amen" post (giving the "Amen"
                                                      to Stephen and Mike without adding anything of substance.) Consequently, I
                                                      want to withdraw my hasty comments. Let me rephrase my response in this way:

                                                      Insofar as Gordon's argument depends on both a late date for Luke (relative
                                                      to Matthew) AND at the same time depends on Q, I find his argument weak.
                                                      However, as he has tried to claim, this may be a red herring; I definitely
                                                      support his interest in intertextuality, and would prefer to deal directly
                                                      with those matters. It was easy to focus on Q because that's where the
                                                      specifics were most clear, but in the process of doing so, the discussion
                                                      may have veered off track.

                                                      I would like to request clarification from Gordon, asking that he focus his
                                                      discussion of intertextuality on the relationship between two texts,
                                                      including specific examples of verses from one showing an intertextual
                                                      relationship with verses of the other, because it is my understanding that
                                                      this is what intertextuality is about. If my understanding in this matter
                                                      is not correct, I will be pleased to be corrected. Intertextuality on
                                                      theological matters is fine with me. However, claims of intertextuality
                                                      among many texts involving broad generalities is not something that I am
                                                      capable of engaging with, in any productive way.

                                                      Just by way of reviewing some aspects of my understanding of
                                                      intertextuality, here are a few particulars:
                                                      * It must be established that the author of Text A is familiar with
                                                      Text B. This can be established in a different part of the text than the
                                                      part where intertextuality is claimed.
                                                      * It must have a particular focus: an idea, or a concept, or something
                                                      someone said, or didn't say, etc.
                                                      * Strict dependence is not necessary, but there must be enough
                                                      specificity to show that Author A is responding in some way to Text B.
                                                      Is that about right? Are there other important particulars?

                                                      Bob


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

                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.