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

Re: [XTalk] Where Is Paul in the Gospels?

Expand Messages
  • William E. Arnal
    ... Not entirely, no. Especially in the temptation, I think the designation is pretty generic. In Q 10:21-22, it seems to me, the point is much sharper, but
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 2, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Ron Price wrote:

      > I trust you would agree that Matt 11:25-27 (=Q10:21-22), if not also
      > Matt 4:1-11 (=Q4:1-13), implies a belief in Jesus as the unique Son of
      > God.

      Not entirely, no. Especially in the temptation, I think the
      designation is pretty generic. In Q 10:21-22, it seems to
      me, the point is much sharper, but refers to Jesus' unique
      role as a consuit of knowledge and revelation rather than
      the cluster of ideas that Paul associates with this term.

      > My contention is that this belief originated with Paul.

      Well, that's your contention, but you have to demonstrate
      it. You can't appeal to this unsubstantiated contention as
      a (rather question-begging and circular) way of showing Q to
      be dependent on Pauline theology.

      > Who else
      > amongst the early followers of Jesus had the boldness and the vision to
      > cast aside Jewish inhibitions and invent such a breathtaking concept?

      Well, that's the question at hand. One could answer it,
      "well, based on the evidence we have, Q." Frankly, I don't
      see in the term the same boldness, casting aside of Jewish
      inhibitions, and so forth, and the fact is, it's just a
      TERM, not an idea in and of itself. Q and Paul use it
      differently, and since Q a) does not use it the way Paul
      does, or accord it the same centrality, and b) does not show
      contact with the range of other theological ideas typical of
      Paul, and c) has its own distinctive theology that
      apparently owes nothing, conceptually, to Paul, it would
      seem that Q, far from needed to be recast to fit your thesis
      that Paul invented "son of God," actually disproves that
      thesis (though not the thesis that Paul invested this term
      with his own peculiar sense).

      Bill
      ________________________________________
      William E. Arnal e-mail: wea1@...
      Religious Studies/Classics New York University
    • Ron Price
      ... Brian, I didn t claim that Paul had made Jesus on a level with God. But the claim regarding a special father/son relationship made for Jesus repeatedly in
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 3, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Brian McCarthy wrote:

        >How bold/daring was Paul's concept of Jesus as son of God in view of
        >
        >a) the fact that in Paul Jesus is always raised from the dead by God, he
        >does not rise of his own divine power
        >
        >b) I Cor 15:28, where the son will be subjected to God, so that "God may be
        >all in all"

        Brian,
        I didn't claim that Paul had made Jesus on a level with God.
        But the claim regarding a special father/son relationship made for
        Jesus repeatedly in Paul's letters would surely have offended orthodox
        Jews because it could have been interpreted, as later Christians
        certainly did interpret it, as a claim to divinity.

        Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

        > ....... the application of the
        >title Son to Jesus in Q is ....... a way of claiming that Jesus is a
        >recapitulation of "one" who long before Jesus had been designated Son.

        Jeffrey,
        There is a world of difference between designating the nation of
        Israel as God's Son and designating a historical human being as such.
        The latter might be regarded as blasphemy.

        In reply to my comment:

        >> [the belief in Jesus as Son of God] originated with Paul. Who else
        >>amongst the early followers of Jesus had the boldness and the vision to
        >>cast aside Jewish inhibitions and invent such a breathtaking concept?

        Bob Schacht wrote:

        >Well, the obvious answer to your question is: "Peter." (You did say "who,"
        >not "what author?"), which is in the triple tradition (Mark 8:27-30).

        Bob,
        Yes I did say "who". But the application of redaction criticism to
        Mark leads me to believe that the author's main purpose in penning Mark
        8:29 was to point out that Peter (contrast the centurion in Mark 15:39)
        never got beyond seeing Jesus as the Messiah.

        >If Paul invented [the concept of Jesus as the Son of God], why does no
        one credit him with this insight?

        Au_Mark was writing an account of the life of Jesus. Paul never met
        Jesus. So you can hardly expect Mark's gospel to have credited Paul with
        this insight. Anyway Au_Mark was so keen to portray Jesus as the Son of
        God that he was prepared to read the title back into the life of Jesus
        (Mark 1:11; 15:39 etc.). Later gospel writers were probably unaware of
        the origin of the attribution.

        William Arnal wrote:

        > In Q 10:21-22, it seems to
        >me, the point is much sharper, but refers to Jesus' unique
        >role as a consuit of knowledge and revelation rather than
        >the cluster of ideas that Paul associates with this term.

        In such a short passage one could hardly expect to see the whole
        cluster of ideas that Paul associates with "Son of God". But the phrase
        itself provides an undeniable link.

        >> Who else
        >> amongst the early followers of Jesus had the boldness and the vision to
        >> cast aside Jewish inhibitions and invent such a breathtaking concept?

        >Well, that's the question at hand. One could answer it,
        >"well, based on the evidence we have, Q."

        Since when was Q a person? Presumably you mean the author of this
        hypothetical document. But if he/she had introduced the term, he/she
        would surely have made a better job of advertising it than
        in the two quite disparate pericopae: the Temptation and the
        Thanksgiving.

        > Frankly, I don't
        >see in the term the same boldness, casting aside of Jewish
        >inhibitions, and so forth, and the fact is, it's just a
        >TERM, not an idea in and of itself.

        So I suppose you would say "God" is just a term and not an idea in and
        of itself.
        You're on shaky ground here. "the Son of God" is both a phrase/term
        and a theological concept.

        > Q and Paul use it differently, and since Q a) does not use
        > it the way Paul does .......

        The fact that two pericopae in the double tradition use the phrase
        "Son of God" in a way which is atypical of Paul does not prove that Paul
        was not the originator of the phrase as applied to Jesus.
        Note that Paul referred to Jesus as God's Son in 1 Thess over 20 years
        before the next certain reference in Mark, and before the earliest
        proposed date for the hypothetical Q.

        > ....... it would
        >seem that Q, far from needed to be recast to fit your thesis
        >that Paul invented "son of God," .......

        There's a whole raft of reasons why Q should be recast and theology
        plays only a minor role in them. They come under three broad headings:
        (1) Au_Luke must have known Matthew (Luke 1:1; Mattheanisms in Luke;
        etc.)
        (2) The Q which arises from the 2SH is incoherent and quite incredible
        as a real document because of the ridiculous way it mixes narratives and
        sayings, some of which are not even sayings of Jesus. (I've studied the
        structures of the NT documents and even James, which is the least well
        structured, is vastly more coherent than the Q of the 2SH.)
        (3) It points to a Greek original and thus fails to explain Papias' TA
        LOGIA.

        >Q ....... actually disproves that thesis [that Paul was
        > the originator of the term "Son of God" as applied to Jesus].

        But a mere hyothesis (especially a dubious one, see above) can't prove
        or disprove anything.

        Russ Conte wrote:

        >the advocates of 7Q5's authenticity claim
        >it is a passage from Mark 6:52-53. Of more interest, 7Q5 is dated by its
        >advocates to approximately 50.

        Russ,
        There is a clear Sitz im Leben for Mark ca. 70 CE. Either the
        advocates of 7Q5's authenticity or else its dating must be wrong.

        Ron Price

        Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

        e-mail: ron.price@...

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      • William E. Arnal
        ... Gotta love this reasoning: it s not there, but it really is. Come on. The question is, is Paul s theology reflected in Q? And the answer is: no. The term,
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 3, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Ron Price wrote:

          > > In Q 10:21-22, it seems to
          > >me, the point is much sharper, but refers to Jesus' unique
          > >role as a consuit of knowledge and revelation rather than
          > >the cluster of ideas that Paul associates with this term.
          >
          > In such a short passage one could hardly expect to see the whole
          > cluster of ideas that Paul associates with "Son of God". But the phrase
          > itself provides an undeniable link.

          Gotta love this reasoning: it's not there, but it really is.
          Come on. The question is, is Paul's theology reflected in Q?
          And the answer is: no. The term, "son of God" comes up, but
          it means something different, and lacks distinctively
          Pauline traits. I should note that people are always trying
          this, "just because it isn't there doesn't mean it isn't
          there" approach to Q, but it just doesn't work: Q's theology
          is reconstructed not simply in terms of what it lacks, but
          what it HAS. The two "son of God" passages, as I explained
          in my earlier post, do in fact convey their own sets of
          ideas and associations. Those sets of ideas and associations
          are DIFFERENT from Paul's. Moreover, one must wonder about
          the character of this alleged influence if it was, on the
          one hand, sufficient to make Q adopt a "Pauline" title in a
          couple pericopes, but insufficient to cause Q to USE those
          references in a Pauline fashion, or edevlop any other aspect
          of Pauline theology. Seems to me there is an a priori here:
          Paul invented the title, therefore every instance of the
          title must represent Pauline influence, regardless of the
          evidence.

          > Since when was Q a person? Presumably you mean the author of this
          > hypothetical document. But if he/she had introduced the term, he/she
          > would surely have made a better job of advertising it than
          > in the two quite disparate pericopae: the Temptation and the
          > Thanksgiving.

          So you're arguing that the LACK of importance of this term
          in Q is evidence that Q is Pauline in its theology??? Weird.
          Anyway, one could make the same (incorrect) argument about a
          host of other terms in Q: "son of man", "the coming one,"
          "the day," and so on. And one could make similar points
          about other texts. In fact, as I said in my last post, Q
          DOES develop these pericopae sufficiently that the content
          of "son of God" is fairly well specified.

          > So I suppose you would say "God" is just a term and not an idea in and
          > of itself.

          That's correct.

          > You're on shaky ground here. "the Son of God" is both a phrase/term
          > and a theological concept.

          Not an invariable one. It means what you make it mean. As
          does "God."

          > The fact that two pericopae in the double tradition use the phrase
          > "Son of God" in a way which is atypical of Paul does not prove that Paul
          > was not the originator of the phrase as applied to Jesus.

          Well, it sure doesn't prove he WAS thje originator! And, in
          fact, if it can be shown that there was no Pauline influence
          on Q, or that this material in Q predates Paul, well then,
          yeah, it DOES prove that Paul wasn't the originator of the
          title. But "proof" aside, what is lacking in your hypothesis
          is plausibility. Is it PLAUSIBLE that a document showing no
          Pauline influence and apparently lacking any literary
          connection with his extant writings and deriving from a
          locale far outside of his sphere of influence, when it
          contains a phrase that Paul uses, but uses it in a diferent
          way, derived that phrase (and apparently that phrase only)
          from Paul? Well, no.

          > Note that Paul referred to Jesus as God's Son in 1 Thess over 20 years
          > before the next certain reference in Mark, and before the earliest
          > proposed date for the hypothetical Q.

          You clearly aren't up on Q scholarship. A number of folks
          have proposed dates for Q prior to 1 Thess. And NO ONE, I
          think, has proposed a Galilean sphere of Pauline influence,
          so unless we imagine Xianity unified from the start, the
          absolute date of Q vis a vis may not even be relevant.

          > There's a whole raft of reasons why Q should be recast and theology
          > plays only a minor role in them. They come under three broad headings:
          > (1) Au_Luke must have known Matthew (Luke 1:1; Mattheanisms in Luke;
          > etc.)

          Why Luke 1:1 can't refer to Q and Mark, rather than Matthew
          and Mark, or any other number of now-lost sources (including
          "L") is beyond me. As for Mattheanisms in Luke, there is a
          growing literature on this, and the question is far from
          settled.

          > (2) The Q which arises from the 2SH is incoherent and quite incredible
          > as a real document because of the ridiculous way it mixes narratives and
          > sayings, some of which are not even sayings of Jesus. (I've studied the
          > structures of the NT documents and even James, which is the least well
          > structured, is vastly more coherent than the Q of the 2SH.)

          This is foolishness. Read some of the literature on Q before
          airing such patently false conclusions.

          > (3) It points to a Greek original and thus fails to explain Papias' TA
          > LOGIA.

          Right. The explanation for Papias has little to do with Q.
          Is there some Aramaic document flaoting around that I
          haven't heard about? Otherwise, Papias is in fact either
          incorrectly referring to an EXTANT Greek document, or is
          correctly referring to a text we no longer have, either in
          MS form or, like Q, as a reconstruction.

          > But a mere hyothesis (especially a dubious one, see above) can't prove
          > or disprove anything.

          I am longer going to reply to any assertions that "Q is
          hypothetical." There's nothing to say to this beyond what
          I've already said.

          Bill
          ________________________________________
          William E. Arnal e-mail: wea1@...
          Religious Studies/Classics New York University
        • Ron Price
          ... Bill, But the fact is that *if* Paul was the first to apply the label Son of God to Jesus, then those two pericopae contain Pauline theology. (Appying
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 4, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            William Arnal wrote:
            > The question is, is Paul's theology reflected in Q?
            >And the answer is: no. The term, "son of God" comes up, but
            >it means something different, and lacks distinctively
            >Pauline traits.

            Bill,
            But the fact is that *if* Paul was the first to apply the label "Son
            of God" to Jesus, then those two pericopae contain Pauline theology.
            (Appying the label says something about God, namely that Jesus was his
            Son. It can therefore be classed as theology, even if its meaning is
            open to differing interpretations.)

            > ....... Moreover, one must wonder about
            >the character of this alleged influence if it was, on the
            >one hand, sufficient to make Q adopt a "Pauline" title in a
            >couple pericopes, but insufficient to cause Q to USE those
            >references in a Pauline fashion .......

            But here you have totally missed my point. I am saying that Q as
            derived from the 2SH never existed. Therefore any argument based on what
            Q did or did not do is irrelevant here. The actual sayings source
            (which I label "sQ") contained about two-thirds of the "Q" sayings. The
            two pericopae referring to Jesus as God's Son are among several
            pericopae which were not in sQ. They were copied by Au_Luke from
            Matthew.

            >> But if he/she had introduced the term, he/she
            >> would surely have made a better job of advertising it than
            >> in the two quite disparate pericopae: the Temptation and the
            >> Thanksgiving.

            > ....... one could make the same (incorrect) argument about a
            >host of other terms in Q: "son of man" .......

            You may be right. But the sQ description of the coming of the son of
            man in the sky, reminiscent of Daniel 7:13, arguably conveys the essence
            of what the author meant by "son of man" without the need for further
            explanation.

            > Is it PLAUSIBLE that a document showing no
            >Pauline influence and apparently lacking any literary
            >connection with his extant writings and deriving from a
            >locale far outside of his sphere of influence, when it
            >contains a phrase that Paul uses, but uses it in a diferent
            >way, derived that phrase (and apparently that phrase only)
            >from Paul?

            Here again you've completely missed my point. I am arguing that Q as
            you understand it never existed. sQ does not refer to Jesus as God's
            Son. It is entirely plausible that Au_Matt was the first person to put
            in writing the pericopae Matt 4:1-11 and 11:25-27.

            >> Note that Paul referred to Jesus as God's Son in 1 Thess over 20 years
            >> before the next certain reference in Mark, and before the earliest
            >> proposed date for the hypothetical Q.

            >You clearly aren't up on Q scholarship.

            You have several advantages over me here. O.K. I see now that Q is
            dated by some nowadays as early as 40 CE. Even so, a hypothetical
            document taking the earliest date attributed by scholars is not very
            convincing. This is especially so since I note from Schnelle (_The
            History and Theology of the New Testament Writings_, ET SCM, London,
            1998, p.186) that the arguments for an early date depend among other
            things on:
            (1) the genuineness of 1 Thess 2:14-16, which text I see from an earlier
            posting in this thread you regard as questionable (and here I agree with
            you)
            (2) positive references to Gentiles in Q. But all the clear positive
            references to Gentiles are in pericopae which were first written down in
            Matthew according to my hypothesis. They were not in sQ.
            Anyway it can hardly be doubted that 1 Thess has the earliest certain
            reference to Jesus as God's Son.

            > And NO ONE, I
            >think, has proposed a Galilean sphere of Pauline influence

            I don't disagree. But again you underestimate the radical nature of
            the 3SH. When a third of the sayings material is removed from Q in a
            distinctly non-random manner and allocated to Au_Matt, one has to look
            afresh at the question of its original location, just as one has to look
            afresh at the question of its original language.

            >Why Luke 1:1 can't refer to Q and Mark, rather than Matthew
            >and Mark

            Because Q cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as
            "an account of the events which have taken place among us" (REB).

            > or any other number of now-lost sources (including
            >"L")

            I thought you were a 2SH advocate. Are you saying that Luke had three
            documentary sources? Surely the idea of "L" as a written source was
            ditched decades ago.

            > As for Mattheanisms in Luke, there is a
            >growing literature on this, and the question is far from
            >settled.

            Phew! A response which is not an outright rebuttal!
            Thanks for this concession that at least a *part* of my argument is
            plausible.

            >> (2) The Q which arises from the 2SH is incoherent and quite incredible
            >> as a real document because of the ridiculous way it mixes narratives and
            >> sayings, some of which are not even sayings of Jesus. (I've studied the
            >> structures of the NT documents and even James, which is the least well
            >> structured, is vastly more coherent than the Q of the 2SH.)

            >This is foolishness.

            But now you've replaced logical argument with invective, which is not
            helpful.
            The incoherence of Q is manifest from the fact that most Q scholars
            attempt to split it into the supposedly different layers Q1, Q2 and Q3.
            Since when did anyone split James into layers?

            > Read some of the literature on Q before
            >airing such patently false conclusions.

            A.M.Farrer wrote of the supposed author of Q: "What is hard to believe
            is that he should supply the exordium, while omitting the conclusion,
            that he should set in train the only story of unique importance, and
            break it off."

            The critique of the coherence of Q is patently false is it? So
            presumably you think Farrer was foolish as well.

            However if some of that literature addresses Farrer's comment I would
            be grateful for a specific reference.

            >> (3) It points to a Greek original and thus fails to explain Papias' TA
            >> LOGIA.

            >Right. The explanation for Papias has little to do with Q.

            You would say that, because the 2SH has difficulty explaining Papias'
            statement. So, for that matter, does the FH.

            Ron Price

            Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

            e-mail: ron.price@...

            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
          • William E. Arnal
            ... Well, no, those two pericopae contain terminology that originated with Paul. And that s only IF Paul was the first to apply the term to Jesus, and IF other
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 4, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Ron Price wrote:

              > But the fact is that *if* Paul was the first to apply the label "Son
              > of God" to Jesus, then those two pericopae contain Pauline theology.

              Well, no, those two pericopae contain terminology that
              originated with Paul. And that's only IF Paul was the first
              to apply the term to Jesus, and IF other occurances didn't
              just come up on their own (which is certainly possible). The
              meaning of the term differs, so even if the Q author
              encountered Paul and said to himself, "gee, that's a cool
              term," he hasn't in fact adopted the theology that Paul uses
              that term to convey. So, once again, Q lacks Pauline
              theology.

              > (Appying the label says something about God, namely that Jesus was his
              > Son. It can therefore be classed as theology, even if its meaning is
              > open to differing interpretations.)

              Of course the term, in its various uses, says something
              about God (and Jesus). But it can say different things,
              depending on how it's used. And so its mere use does not
              indicate identical or even similar ideas. Look, e.g., at
              Luke's application of the term to ADAM, of all people!

              > > ....... Moreover, one must wonder about
              > >the character of this alleged influence if it was, on the
              > >one hand, sufficient to make Q adopt a "Pauline" title in a
              > >couple pericopes, but insufficient to cause Q to USE those
              > >references in a Pauline fashion .......
              >
              > But here you have totally missed my point. I am saying that Q as
              > derived from the 2SH never existed. Therefore any argument based on what
              > Q did or did not do is irrelevant here. The actual sayings source
              > (which I label "sQ") contained about two-thirds of the "Q" sayings. The
              > two pericopae referring to Jesus as God's Son are among several
              > pericopae which were not in sQ. They were copied by Au_Luke from
              > Matthew.

              Actually, you have missed my point, in the above, insofar as
              I was saying that these two pericopae do NOT convey Pauline
              ideas re. son of god. Yes, I could make the further point
              that Q elsewhere lacks Pauline concepts, but in fact I was
              saying that these stories/sayings lack Pauline concepts.
              This is as true in their Matthean incarnations as within the
              context of Q.

              In addition, I did not in fact miss your point avbout
              revising the Q hypothesis -- I was just ignoring it. Your
              claim was that Q, as it is understood, is Pauline in its
              theology. I was countering that claim.

              > You may be right. But the sQ description of the coming of the son of
              > man in the sky, reminiscent of Daniel 7:13, arguably conveys the essence
              > of what the author meant by "son of man" without the need for further
              > explanation.

              As does son of god, even if only in the pericopes in which
              it appears. As I keep saying, these units do in themselves
              specify the content of "son of god," and moreover do so in
              way that has little in common with Paul's usage. By the way,
              what about my other example, "the Coming One"?

              > Here again you've completely missed my point. I am arguing that Q as
              > you understand it never existed. sQ does not refer to Jesus as God's
              > Son. It is entirely plausible that Au_Matt was the first person to put
              > in writing the pericopae Matt 4:1-11 and 11:25-27.

              Well, it would be plausible if I thought there were any
              convincing grounds for rejecting Q as normally conceived,
              but since I DON'T, then it is not plausible at all that
              Matthew formulated these two units.

              > You have several advantages over me here. O.K. I see now that Q is
              > dated by some nowadays as early as 40 CE. Even so, a hypothetical
              > document taking the earliest date attributed by scholars is not very
              > convincing. This is especially so since I note from Schnelle (_The
              > History and Theology of the New Testament Writings_, ET SCM, London,
              > 1998, p.186) that the arguments for an early date depend among other
              > things on:
              > (1) the genuineness of 1 Thess 2:14-16, which text I see from an earlier
              > posting in this thread you regard as questionable (and here I agree with
              > you)

              Just a clarification here: I actually DON'T regard Pauline
              authorship of 1 Thess 2:13-16 to be doubtful; I was merely
              recognizing that a l0ots of folks DO. In fact, I was
              thoroughly convinced by John Hurd's arguments ("Paul
              Ahead of his Time," Peter Richardson, ed., _Anti-Judaism in
              Early Christianity_, or something like that; against
              Pearson) that this unit is original to 1 Thess. But that's
              another matter.

              In any case, you're partly right here: at least SOME early
              datings of Q depend on a linkage with 1 Thess 2:13-16
              (including my own!), but not all. Theissen dates Q to the
              40s CE on very different grounds. Moreover, since there's
              nothing about Q that compels a late date (in spite of the
              efforts of Luhrmann, and even more dramatically, Hoffmann
              and Myllykoski), an early dating doesn't DEPEND on 1 Thess
              -- it just may appeal to it. You know what I mean? In other
              words, even if 1 Thess 2:13-16 could be proven to be an
              interpolation, or could be proven to have no bearing on Q,
              that would not require a late date for Q -- it would just
              knock out one particular argument for dating Q in the 40s.

              > (2) positive references to Gentiles in Q. But all the clear positive
              > references to Gentiles are in pericopae which were first written down in
              > Matthew according to my hypothesis. They were not in sQ.

              Whoa! This I don't get. How do Q's supposed positive
              references to Gentiles in any way support an EARLY date for
              Q??? For Luhrmann, they were an indication of its lateness!

              In any case, this comment of yours makes me think that a
              methodological point is in order. It APPEARS to me (correct
              me if I'm wrong) that you want to take units away from Q on
              the grounds of this or that theological peculiarity. That
              is, you want to dump the temptation, and the "I thank you,
              Father," saying, because of the "son of God" concept, and
              you also want to dump the stuff that makes (apparently)
              positive reference to Gentiles. To my mind, this sort of
              method always dissolves into special pleading. It starts by
              assuming a particular chronology of ideas, then looks for
              those ideas in the sources, makes allegedly early ideas an
              indication of early sources, and late ideas an indication of
              late sources, and then uses the dates of these sources to
              show the provenance and chronology of the ideas! That's no
              good at all: anyone can "refute" it by coming up with a
              counter-chronology and making the same kind of application.
              The only real control we have on our reconstructions is the
              literary evidence, and so our hypotheses need to depend on
              that evidence. The grounds for positing Q rest with Luke not
              knowing Matthew. Without that claim, there's no reason to
              hypothesize Q at all, since we may as well attribute all of
              the double tradition to Luke's use of Matthew. There are no
              literary reasons, either, for excluding the temptation, or
              the positive references to Gentiles, or the like, from a
              hypothetical Q -- they are used by Luke in much the same
              way as he uses other double tradition material, and resemble
              the Matthean texts no more nor less than is usual for the
              double tradition.

              > Anyway it can hardly be doubted that 1 Thess has the earliest certain
              > reference to Jesus as God's Son.

              Eariest certain reference, sure. But not certainly earliest.

              > I don't disagree. But again you underestimate the radical nature of
              > the 3SH. When a third of the sayings material is removed from Q in a
              > distinctly non-random manner and allocated to Au_Matt, one has to look
              > afresh at the question of its original location, just as one has to look
              > afresh at the question of its original language.

              Okay, "in a distinctively non-random manner" makes it sound
              like you DO have literary, as opposed to
              tradition-historical, grounds for your revision of Q. If so,
              I'd like to know what they are.

              > Because Q cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as
              > "an account of the events which have taken place among us" (REB).

              Of course it can. Are you saying that this description of
              sources is so constrictive that it can only include the
              narrative gospel genre.

              > > or any other number of now-lost sources (including
              > >"L")
              >
              > I thought you were a 2SH advocate. Are you saying that Luke had three
              > documentary sources? Surely the idea of "L" as a written source was
              > ditched decades ago.

              Uh, the 2SH does not, to my knowledge, insist that there
              were ONLY two sources; only that the main shared sources for
              Matthew and Luke were Mark and Q. I am increasingly
              convinced that Luke had Thomas, or at least Thomas
              traditions, as a source (see the article by Gregory Riley in
              HTR 88, I think). And he clearly had SOME source for all
              those parables he includes in his travel narrative. Whether
              this was a single written text or not, I have no idea. Lots
              of people, by the way, still buy "L" -- I'm just not sure
              I'm one of them.

              > > As for Mattheanisms in Luke, there is a
              > >growing literature on this, and the question is far from
              > >settled.
              >
              > Phew! A response which is not an outright rebuttal!
              > Thanks for this concession that at least a *part* of my argument is
              > plausible.

              Well, I'm pretty much forced to concede that there are
              people out there -- intelligent people, first-rate scholars
              (are your ears burning, Mark?) -- who take the position that
              Luke used Matthew. So I have to concede that this is
              something that's being discussed these days. I happen to
              think Mark, and the view he defends, is WRONG, but it is
              current. However, I would not for a moment concede that
              Mattheanisms in Luke have actually been ESTABLISHED.

              > But now you've replaced logical argument with invective, which is not
              > helpful.
              > The incoherence of Q is manifest from the fact that most Q scholars
              > attempt to split it into the supposedly different layers Q1, Q2 and Q3.
              > Since when did anyone split James into layers?

              How about Didache? How about 1 Enoch? Moreover, this
              argument shows a complete lack of awareness of the GROUNDS
              on which Q is stratified (which has nothing to do with
              incoherence). Invective, yes, because I'm tired of hearing
              this particular argument, which has no basis in fact at all.
              Kloppenborg -- the same dude who popularized the idea of a
              stratified Q -- also showed Q's generic comparability with a
              whole range of Near Eastern and Hellenistic writings. Alan
              Kirk, more recently, has made a similar and perhaps even
              more thorough case. A familiarity with the literature that
              you're trying to refute would help shore up your arguments,
              I think.

              > A.M.Farrer wrote of the supposed author of Q: "What is hard to believe
              > is that he should supply the exordium, while omitting the conclusion,
              > that he should set in train the only story of unique importance, and
              > break it off."
              >
              > The critique of the coherence of Q is patently false is it? So
              > presumably you think Farrer was foolish as well.

              Yes, I do.

              > However if some of that literature addresses Farrer's comment I would
              > be grateful for a specific reference.

              As above. See Kloppenborg, _Formation of Q_, and Alan Kirk
              (it's a Brill volume and now, of course, the title has
              slipped out of my mind). Hell, even Robinson's old "Logoi
              Sophon" article adddresses this. I note that Mark Goodacre
              has tried to revive this weak argument by showing that Q has
              a narrative skeleton that distinguishes it from, say,
              Thomas, and so renders it generically incoherent. I didn't
              find that argument convincing, for reasons that I assume are
              somewhere in the crosstalk archives, probably from about
              last year at this time.

              > You would say that, because the 2SH has difficulty explaining Papias'
              > statement. So, for that matter, does the FH.

              Or any other hypothesis. Actually, 2SH has a fine
              explanation for Papias: he didn't know what he was talking
              about. Anyway, and once again, as I asked: is there some
              Aramaic sayings document out there that actually corresponds
              to this reference? If there isn't, what's your point?

              Bill
              ________________________________________
              William E. Arnal e-mail: wea1@...
              Religious Studies/Classics New York University
            • Mark Goodacre
              ... Whoever has ears to hear, let them burn. I m enjoying your participation in Xtalk and can t but find myself commenting on this and one other remark in one
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 5, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                On 4 Dec 2000, at 16:32, William E. Arnal wrote:

                > Well, I'm pretty much forced to concede that there are
                > people out there -- intelligent people, first-rate scholars
                > (are your ears burning, Mark?) -- who take the position that Luke
                > used Matthew. So I have to concede that this is something that's
                > being discussed these days. I happen to think Mark, and the view
                > he defends, is WRONG, but it is current. However, I would not for
                > a moment concede that Mattheanisms in Luke have actually been
                > ESTABLISHED.

                Whoever has ears to hear, let them burn. I'm enjoying your
                participation in Xtalk and can't but find myself commenting on
                this and one other remark in one of your emails. I wonder if it
                isn't the case that the presence of Mattheanisms in Luke has
                been established. You can't get more Matthean than
                "weeping and gnashing of teeth", "o ye of little faith" and
                "when Jesus had finished these sayings . . .". unless one
                wants to dispense with any kind of meaningful definition of
                "Matthean". The difficulty is not whether or not they're present
                -- that seems to be a given -- the difficulty is what their import
                is. Partly in response to my critique, Goulder has recently
                reformulated his linguistic argument in a direct challenge to
                the IQP's means of reconstructing Q, as you know. I still
                think that Goulder is overstating his case, but think he is
                making a very interesting basic point nonetheless, viz. given
                that on multiple occasions QC (= words common to Matt. and
                Luke in Q passages) clearly features distinctive Matthean
                expressions, we cannot assume that on other occasions, in
                QD (=Q passages where Matt. and Luke differ), Q did not
                feature distinctive Matthean expressions. In other words,
                when one reads through reconstructions of Q, one regularly
                sees statements to this effect: "given the Matthean nature of
                this expression, it is unlikely that it stood in Q". But given
                that there are many expressions in Q that are distinctive of
                Matthew (because of the QC data), this is the kind of
                assumption we simply can't make, can we?

                > As above. See Kloppenborg, _Formation of Q_, and Alan Kirk
                > (it's a Brill volume and now, of course, the title has
                > slipped out of my mind). Hell, even Robinson's old "Logoi
                > Sophon" article adddresses this. I note that Mark Goodacre
                > has tried to revive this weak argument by showing that Q has a
                > narrative skeleton that distinguishes it from, say, Thomas, and
                > so renders it generically incoherent. I didn't find that argument
                > convincing, for reasons that I assume are somewhere in the
                > crosstalk archives, probably from about last year at this
                time.

                Both Robinson and Kloppenborg have indeed seen the extent
                to which Q is moving in the direction of bios with some striking
                narrative elements. I grant that this is one possible reading of
                the evidence to which I was drawing attention, and on which it
                seems I am in agreement with some Q scholars (and who
                better than Robinson and Kloppenborg?!) What I was
                attempting to do was to suggest that the Farrer Theory's
                reading is a more plausible reading of the evidence because it
                can deal satisfactorily with the triple tradition narrative material
                that is taken for granted in Q and because it can satisfactorily
                explain elements in the narrative structure of Q like Q 7.1,
                "and when Jesus had finished these sayings . . ." But, as Bill
                says, we had a good debate about this around this time last
                year and there's probably nothing fresh that can be added at
                this juncture.

                Mark
                --------------------------------------
                Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                Homepage
                http://www.ntgateway.com
                The New Testament Gateway
              • Nichael Cramer
                ... This is most certainly true. However shouldn t we find it at least a little curious that Paul is so completely, so uttlerly absent from the Gospels? Can
                Message 7 of 20 , Dec 5, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ron Price wrote:
                  >Howard wrote:
                  >>Where did Paul disappear to in the Gospels?
                  >
                  >Howard,
                  > The gospels are about the life of Jesus, in which Paul played no part,
                  >so you wouldn't expect him to appear there explicitly.

                  This is most certainly true. However shouldn't we find it
                  at least a little curious that Paul is so completely, so
                  uttlerly absent from the Gospels? Can that absence itself
                  tell us anything interesting?

                  Of course, the Gospels served many roles aside from
                  the simple putative recording of the Life of Jesus.
                  One of the most important of these was establishing
                  the authority and credibility of the early Church.

                  In particular, many of the leaders of the early church
                  --i.e. the leaders who were in place at the time when the
                  Gosples were written-- are clearly being "set up" in the
                  Gospels; James and John being two obvious examples.

                  It seems not unlikely that by the time the writers of the Gospels
                  were at work Paul would have had some reputation among the
                  various communities. Why was Paul excluded from such a process?
                  Shouldn't we expect him to be afforded at least some small crumb
                  by the writers of the Gospels? Even some phrase, something like
                  "...from Damascus will come a light..." Instead the silence is
                  absolute.

                  To most modern readers of the NT, if there is a second person
                  in Christianity after Jesus that person is Paul. The very
                  least that such an exclusion should tell us is that this view
                  is rather different from that held in and by the early Church.

                  N


                  --
                  Nichael Cramer
                  nichael@...
                  http://www.sover.net/~nichael/
                • William E. Arnal
                  ... Fair enough. IF by Mattheanisms is meant stylistic features [or other] which are favourites of Matthew and NOT stylistic features that were derived
                  Message 8 of 20 , Dec 6, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Mark Goodacre wrote:

                    > this and one other remark in one of your emails. I wonder if it
                    > isn't the case that the presence of Mattheanisms in Luke has
                    > been established. You can't get more Matthean than
                    > "weeping and gnashing of teeth", "o ye of little faith" and
                    > "when Jesus had finished these sayings . . .". unless one
                    > wants to dispense with any kind of meaningful definition of
                    > "Matthean". The difficulty is not whether or not they're present
                    > -- that seems to be a given -- the difficulty is what their import

                    Fair enough. IF by "Mattheanisms" is meant "stylistic
                    features [or other] which are favourites of Matthew" and NOT
                    "stylistic features that were derived from Matthew." I took
                    the reference to "Mattheanisms", to which I responded, to be
                    an assertion that there WERE in fact places where Luke
                    certainly adopted stylistic [or other] features FROM
                    Matthew. To this, of course, I object. It seems to me that
                    just calling them "Mattheanisms" threatens to beg the
                    question. I would assume that many such instances represent
                    Lukan taking over of Q expressions which are also taken over
                    -- and repeated and amplified -- in Matthew. Does that make
                    sense?

                    > expressions, we cannot assume that on other occasions, in
                    > QD (=Q passages where Matt. and Luke differ), Q did not
                    > feature distinctive Matthean expressions.

                    I think that is probably true. But I think the IQP method is
                    rather complex than this; one can also reason, "if Q read
                    this way [i.e., Matthew's "Matthean" wording], was there any
                    reason for Luke to have changed the material in the
                    direction he did?" If the answer to that is "yes," then the
                    "Matthean" wording SHOULD be (I doubt it is, consistently,
                    but hey, that's life) preferred as original Q; if theanswer
                    is "no," then the grounds for preferring Luke's wording are
                    more than simply that the Matthean wording sounds Matthean.

                    > sees statements to this effect: "given the Matthean nature of
                    > this expression, it is unlikely that it stood in Q". But given
                    > that there are many expressions in Q that are distinctive of
                    > Matthew (because of the QC data), this is the kind of
                    > assumption we simply can't make, can we?

                    Again, true enough, but the Lukan wording will also be a
                    factor -- is it especially Lukan? Did Luke have (apparent)
                    grounds for changing it to reflect the wording he now has?
                    and so on.

                    > Both Robinson and Kloppenborg have indeed seen the extent
                    > to which Q is moving in the direction of bios with some striking
                    > narrative elements.

                    Well, narrative elements and narrative sequence are
                    different things. No one would deny that Q has narrative
                    elements: 7:1-10 is an obvious case in point, as is the
                    frame of every damn chreia in the whole collection.
                    Kloppenborg claims, however, that at its final stage Q was
                    moving in the direction of a *bios* and hence on a line that
                    would eventually converge with the (narrative) gospels. I'm
                    not so sure I agree with this -- the treatment of JBap does
                    NOT strike me as interested in sequence or chronology, and
                    the temptation seems to me to be more a thematic than
                    biographical statement (what I mean is: its point at the
                    start of the document is to establish Jesus' authority as a
                    teacher, rather than to tell the story of how that ministry
                    started).

                    In any case, Kloppenborg has shown, I think, that even with
                    a generic drift towards *bios*, Q falls within the
                    parameters of ancient sapiential literature. Of course, I
                    recognize that the paper you gave last year at the SBL was
                    claiming far more than THIS. And that, we have already
                    discussed.

                    Bill
                    ________________________________________
                    William E. Arnal e-mail: wea1@...
                    Religious Studies/Classics New York University
                  • William E. Arnal
                    ... I can t agree with this assessment of things: what about Luke-Acts? It s definitely NOT as though the author of Luke has no interest in Paul, or wishes to
                    Message 9 of 20 , Dec 6, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Nichael Cramer wrote:

                      > It seems not unlikely that by the time the writers of the Gospels
                      > were at work Paul would have had some reputation among the
                      > various communities. Why was Paul excluded from such a process?
                      > Shouldn't we expect him to be afforded at least some small crumb
                      > by the writers of the Gospels? Even some phrase, something like
                      > "...from Damascus will come a light..." Instead the silence is
                      > absolute.

                      I can't agree with this assessment of things: what about
                      Luke-Acts? It's definitely NOT as though the author of Luke
                      has no interest in Paul, or wishes to suppress his
                      importance. He devotes half or more of his "second volume"
                      to the guy! But does he appear in GLuke? Not at all,not a
                      hint. Since we can't infer disdain, suppression, or
                      ignorance of Paul from his absence in GLuke, I'm not sure we
                      can from the other gospels either.

                      Bill

                      ________________________________________
                      William E. Arnal e-mail: wea1@...
                      Religious Studies/Classics New York University
                    • James Covey
                      Hey CrossTalkers: I m itching to give John Dominic Crossan s _The Birth of Christianity_ another close read-through. Anyone else want to join me? I know I m
                      Message 10 of 20 , Dec 6, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hey CrossTalkers:

                        I'm itching to give John Dominic Crossan's
                        _The Birth of Christianity_ another close
                        read-through. Anyone else want to join me?

                        I know I'm not going to get to it 'til after
                        Christmas, so I'm suggesting that we start
                        in on January 5, and read through at a rate
                        of one Part per week (there's ten Parts)
                        with extra weeks at either end for introductory
                        sections and summary arguments/conclusions.

                        I've set up a moderated list for this purpose
                        on eGroups. I'm an experienced list moderator
                        and I promise to filter out the crap and keep
                        a short leash on the posts-per-day.

                        Come on, you know you want to.

                        BoC-Sem-subscribe@egroups.com

                        James

                        p.s. feel free to post this to other lists
                        you're on, e.g. Synoptic-L, Thomas list...

                        --
                        James R. Covey
                        Contributing Writer
                        The Coast "Halifax's Weekly"
                        direct ph: 902.422.8915
                        Coast fax: 902.425.0013
                      • Bob Schacht
                        ... James, Did you ever get around to doing this? With Sukie Curtis s study guide as a stimulus, I have taken the plunge and put it out there in my local world
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jan 18, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 05:11 PM 12/6/00 -0400, you wrote:
                          >Hey CrossTalkers:
                          >
                          >I'm itching to give John Dominic Crossan's
                          >_The Birth of Christianity_ another close
                          >read-through. Anyone else want to join me?
                          >
                          >I know I'm not going to get to it 'til after
                          >Christmas, so I'm suggesting that we start
                          >in on January 5, and read through at a rate
                          >of one Part per week (there's ten Parts)
                          >with extra weeks at either end for introductory
                          >sections and summary arguments/conclusions.
                          >
                          >I've set up a moderated list for this purpose
                          >on eGroups. I'm an experienced list moderator
                          >and I promise to filter out the crap and keep
                          >a short leash on the posts-per-day.
                          >
                          >Come on, you know you want to.

                          James,
                          Did you ever get around to doing this? With Sukie Curtis's study guide as a
                          stimulus, I have taken the plunge and put it out there in my local world to
                          do a study course on BOC starting February 1 and ending by Easter. I just
                          started advertising in the past few days, so I guess that means that
                          there's no turning back now.... :-)

                          Bob


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • jwest@highland.net
                          ... yes-- if you set up this list it sounds like a good-- focused idea. i would like to participate- so what is the list address so i can sign up? and feb 1
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jan 19, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > >I've set up a moderated list for this purpose
                            > >on eGroups. I'm an experienced list moderator
                            > >and I promise to filter out the crap and keep
                            > >a short leash on the posts-per-day.
                            > >
                            > >Come on, you know you want to.
                            >
                            > James,
                            > Did you ever get around to doing this? With Sukie Curtis's study guide as a
                            > stimulus, I have taken the plunge and put it out there in my local world to
                            > do a study course on BOC starting February 1 and ending by Easter. I just
                            > started advertising in the past few days, so I guess that means that
                            > there's no turning back now.... :-)

                            yes-- if you set up this list it sounds like a good-- focused idea. i would
                            like to participate- so what is the list address so i can sign up? and feb 1
                            sounds like a good day to begin.

                            let me know.

                            Jim
                          • Liz Fried
                            I purchased Sukie s guide, but haven t read it (sorry, Sukie) I haven t read BOC yet either, tho started it. I d like to try the discussion group. I m weighed
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jan 19, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I purchased Sukie's guide, but haven't read it
                              (sorry, Sukie)
                              I haven't read BOC yet either, tho started it.
                              I'd like to try the discussion group.
                              I'm weighed down with a bunch of stuff,
                              and would like to go v e r y v e r y s l o
                              w l y
                              liz

                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: jwest@... [mailto:jwest@...]
                              > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 10:08 AM
                              > To: crosstalk2@egroups.com
                              > Subject: Re: [XTalk] BOC discussion group?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > > >I've set up a moderated list for this purpose
                              > > >on eGroups. I'm an experienced list moderator
                              > > >and I promise to filter out the crap and keep
                              > > >a short leash on the posts-per-day.
                              > > >
                              > > >Come on, you know you want to.
                              > >
                              > > James,
                              > > Did you ever get around to doing this? With Sukie Curtis's
                              > study guide as a
                              > > stimulus, I have taken the plunge and put it out there in my
                              > local world to
                              > > do a study course on BOC starting February 1 and ending by
                              > Easter. I just
                              > > started advertising in the past few days, so I guess that means that
                              > > there's no turning back now.... :-)
                              >
                              > yes-- if you set up this list it sounds like a good-- focused
                              > idea. i would
                              > like to participate- so what is the list address so i can sign
                              > up? and feb 1
                              > sounds like a good day to begin.
                              >
                              > let me know.
                              >
                              > Jim
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org
                              >
                              > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                              >
                              > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
                              >
                              >
                            • Secher
                              Hi! Folks, I would like to be a part of this group. If someone could nail down the URL for joining and the beginning timeframe, as soon as possible, I would be
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jan 19, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi! Folks,

                                I would like to be a part of this group. If someone could nail down the URL for joining
                                and the beginning timeframe, as soon as possible, I would be more than happy to announce
                                it on my list and several others are involved with. I think several folks would be willing
                                to join in.

                                Will we use Sukie Curtis's guide as a formal "workbook"?( See informational post below.)

                                Talk to you later, Howard ~&~
                                Any questions about the Historical Jesus?
                                http://www.onelist.com/group/HistoricalJesus101
                                Kindly overlook contextual errors, I use speech recognition software.
                                ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

                                Hello, all,

                                I've been a silent participant for several months but am briefly coming out of hiding to
                                mention that, with the help of Gail Dawson, also of the august group, I will very soon
                                have available copies of a study guide to accompany Crossan's _The Birth of
                                Christianity_. It consists of summaries of his material (some who have used it say it
                                helped keep them on track, esp. in the more complicated material) and questions for
                                reflection and discussion, aimed particularly toward (but hopefull not exclusively toward)
                                church discussion groups, in that many of the questions reflect the interaction of
                                Crossan's proposals with "traditional" Christian teaching. A special feature of the guide
                                includes questions from several real-life book study groups to Crossan and his responses
                                back, which took place by email in a project I set up last fall. The whole thing is 66
                                pages long, three-hole punched and shrink-wrapped, for a bargain price of $6 per copy plus
                                1.75 for shipping.

                                If you're interested, I'm at sbcurtis@... or if you're ready to send your money
                                (!), you may do so at:
                                Sukie Curtis
                                8 Pine Lane
                                Cumberland Foreside
                                Maine 04110.

                                Sukie Curtis
                                Cumberland Foreside, Maine






                                > >I've set up a moderated list for this purpose
                                > >on eGroups. I'm an experienced list moderator
                                > >and I promise to filter out the crap and keep
                                > >a short leash on the posts-per-day.
                                > >
                                > >Come on, you know you want to.
                                >
                                > James,
                                > Did you ever get around to doing this? With Sukie Curtis's study guide as a
                                > stimulus, I have taken the plunge and put it out there in my local world to
                                > do a study course on BOC starting February 1 and ending by Easter. I just
                                > started advertising in the past few days, so I guess that means that
                                > there's no turning back now.... :-)

                                yes-- if you set up this list it sounds like a good-- focused idea. i would
                                like to participate- so what is the list address so i can sign up? and feb 1
                                sounds like a good day to begin.

                                let me know.

                                Jim





                                The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org

                                To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com

                                To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com

                                List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.