--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "William Arnal" <warnal@...> wrote:
>Brian Trafford wrote all kinds of good stuff, mostly snipped, and:
>>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?)
Well, I don't know about Regina, but it IS mighty cold here in Calgary
>I maintain my conviction that at least some of the critiques that
>have been made of certain positions in Q scholarship have likely been
>made because of those conclusions' (or their implications')
>unattractiveness for the HJ.
And while I agree (!!!), I also believe that the reverse is likely
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. Q
>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.
And as a Q sceptic, I would only add that proponents of the Farrer
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