Re: No Passion Narrative in Q?
- At 07:29 AM 1/17/2006, leeedgartyler@... wrote:
> >Although I hate to be tedious, aren't we failing to distinguish here
> > From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
> > Date: 2006/01/17 Tue AM 10:48:53 EST
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: [XTalk] RE: First Century Christians in Galilee
> > At 12:37 PM 1/17/2006 +0000, Tony Buglass wrote:
> > >. . . Jimmy Dunn. . . says:
> > >"Here I simply want to draw attention to the more obvious, much the more
> > >obvious explanation for the two features of Q that have been drawn
> into such
> > >speculation about the "Q community" - the absence of a passion
> narrative and
> > >the Galilean provenance of the Q material. The most obvious
> explanation for
> > >these features is that the Q material first emerged in Galilee and was
> > >its lasting shape there prior to Jesus' death in Jerusalem. . . ."
> > >("A New Perspective on Jesus" p.27)
> > I realize this is Dunn's argument instead of yours, but the absense
> > of a passion narrative in Q does not imply that it was "given its
> > lasting shape there prior to Jesus' death." . . .
between Q *as postulated* and Q *as a real document*? That is, isn't the
lack of a passion narrative in Q, if I understand correctly, merely an a
priori assertion? I mean, how can we declare that Q lacked X, when we don't
have a physical document Q, and when our secondary sources for Q (ie, Luke
and Matthew) both have a Passion Narrative? This always seemed somewhat
arbitrary to me, but perhaps I just don't understand.
I for one think that the datum about "lack of a Passion Narrative in Q"
tells us more about the state of modern Biblical scholarship than it tells
us about Q.
But maybe I'm forgetting what the compelling argument for the lack of a
passion narrative in Q is based on. I would be grateful if someone would
remind me why everyone is so convinced that Q had no passion narrative.
University of Hawaii
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --- In email@example.com, "William Arnal" <warnal@...> wrote:
>Brian Trafford wrote all kinds of good stuff, mostly snipped, and:Well, I don't know about Regina, but it IS mighty cold here in Calgary
>>Why would we think that the "Q-author" was necessarily any more, or
>>less, creative, than Matthew?
>I couldn't agree more, not only with the above statement, but with
>much of the snipped material as well. (Is Hell freezing over?)
>I maintain my conviction that at least some of the critiques thatAnd while I agree (!!!), I also believe that the reverse is likely
>have been made of certain positions in Q scholarship have likely been
>made because of those conclusions' (or their implications')
>unattractiveness for the HJ.
true, as more than one scholar has used Q to promote a rather
different theology than is commonly associated with orthodox
Christianity. Both forms of reasoning are fallacious. The double
tradition stands as a fact (or at least as close to a fact as one can
get in this kind of business). Put simply, Matt and Luke shared a
bunch of stuff not found anywhere else. Now, whether this material
originated in a shared common document (as the Q advocates believe),
or in Mattew (or, I suppose, possibly even in Luke), as the Q-sceptics
maintain, the question of how much of it can presumably be traced back
to the historical Jesus is a red herring. I was pleased to see that
in both Kloppenborg's and Goodacre's radically different treatments of
Q, both set aside the question of the historicity of the double
tradition, and rightly so.
>But is there a necessary and logical connection? Not at all. QAnd as a Q sceptic, I would only add that proponents of the Farrer
>scholarship shouldn't be constrained by orthodoxies of the HJ field
>(if there are any left) -- but neither should the HJ be constrained
>by Q scholarship and its orthodoxies.
Hypothesis (and any other theories seeking to resolve the Synoptic
Problem) likewise divorce that effort from the quest for HJ. Though
Bill and I probably agree on just about nothing else (is that too
strong?), I think that the HJ debates have not served to advance the
study (or debunking) of Q. In my view the Synoptic Problem is a
literary question more than an historical one, and should be treated
as such. One can only imagine studing the Bard for historical
sources, and musings about the historicity of the "sayings and deeds
of Macbeth" coming to dominate the discussion.
Calgary, AB, Canada