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

RE: FW: [XTalk] Re: No Passion Narrative in Q?

Expand Messages
  • Matson, Mark (Academic)
    ... I think this is a very helpful discussion. As one who has written in support of the Farrer theory (and thus against Q), I would agree with Bill s overall
    Message 1 of 22 , Jan 23, 2006
      Bill Arnal wrote:
      > Either that, or defuse Q scholarship altogether by asserting
      > either that Q
      > is hypothetical. The problem with the latter argument is that it is
      > selectively applied, suggesting to me that the issue is
      > really that the Q
      > hypothesis produces unattractive results, not that the
      > process of producing
      > those results is problematic. I think this was Zeb's point
      > about the text of
      > Mark also being hypothetical. But since that example doesn't
      > seem to be
      > convincing anyone, consider the implications of Mark
      > Goodacre's arguments
      > against Q. They do not ONLY imply that Q is an empty
      > construct, they ALSO
      > imply (inter alia) that the compositional process of Luke has
      > been badly
      > misunderstood. For Mark Goodacre's alternative, which
      > dispenses with the
      > need for Q, is that Luke used Matthew as a source as well as
      > Mark, meaning
      > that Luke's redactional processes and motives are quite
      > different from how
      > we have normally understood them. An example of this came up
      > fairly recently
      > on this list -- if Mark Goodacre is right, Luke's version of
      > the beatitude
      > on the poor is redactionally motivated and secondary to
      > Matthew's. This has
      > huge implications for the HJ. Yet I hardly ever hear the
      > charge that our
      > knowledge of Lukan redaction is "too hypothetical" and should
      > there not be
      > used to reconstruct an HJ, even though such knowledge is
      > based on almost
      > exactly the same reasoning as our postulation of Q. If Mark
      > G. is right,
      > more than Q needs to be rethought, and his arguments deserve
      > consideration.
      > But they should NOT become the default position just because
      > Q generates
      > uncomfortable conclusions, or because Q can be dismissed
      > prejudicially as
      > hypothetical. It's ALL hypothetical, folks.

      I think this is a very helpful discussion. As one who has written in
      support of the Farrer theory (and thus against Q), I would agree with
      Bill's overall thesis here. The question of whether there is a Q should
      be engaged outside of any consideration of what the "results" might
      imply. I for one have come to the conclusion that Luke has "rewritten"
      both Matthew and Mark with a strong hand. But that is the issue isn't
      it -- which is more likely, that Luke is a strong composer/editor, or
      that he used a source common to Matthew and independently of it?

      Of course the Farrer theory still does not do away with other sources
      besides Mark. After all, Matthew has material in addition to Mark (in
      the Farrer theory) that can still be a source of historical information.
      And Luke does too! So we still have "sources", just maybe oral or even
      possibly notes -- some of the same range of issues that arise with Q

      But I think Bill's cautionary note of working backwards from desired
      results is very worthwhile. And I would say that most of us working on
      the Farrer model have not begun with any end results -- I believe we are
      honestly trying to deal with the texts and imagine the most likely
      interaction between the texts. The only big disagreement I would have
      with Bill's comment captioned above is that we aren't just "implying"
      the absence of Q, I hope we are seen as arguing the case with careful
      analysis. "Implying," to me, is a bit more vague and insubstantial than
      I hope we have been. Granted that some disagree with our results, and
      there is certainly room for that. But we are making a reasoned case, and
      are aware that the burden of proof (as always) rests on us to make a
      logical and rational case.


      Mark A. Matson
      Academic Dean
      Milligan College

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