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

Re: [XTalk] Mark Used Q

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Mark, As you are probably aware, I fully agree that the Q pericopae you mention indicate a dependence on Mark/ the triple tradition. ... But here the
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 1, 2001
      Mark Goodacre wrote:

      >I think there's a more major problem with the view that is not often
      >perceived and that is that Q often appears to presuppose material
      >in Mark / the triple tradition, e.g. that John's baptism was for
      >repentance (hence "You brood of vipers . . . bear fruit worthy of
      >repentance"), that Jesus was known to eat with tax-collectors and
      >sinners ("a glutton and a drunkard . . . .") and so on.

      Mark,
      As you are probably aware, I fully agree that the 'Q' pericopae you
      mention indicate a dependence on Mark/ the triple tradition.

      > ... So if there is
      >any dependence, I'd say it goes in the direction of Q's use of Mark -
      >- it presupposes so much in it .......

      But here the flexibility of the 3ST comes into its own. For I have
      elsewhere indicated a set of arguments for assigning these particular
      pericopae (plus a few others) to Matthew, whilst retaining the bulk of
      the sayings in a written sayings source I've called "sQ". Thus bearing
      in mind the primitive appearance of many of the sayings, I can still
      maintain the more likely direction of dependency of Mark (ca. 70 CE)
      using sQ (ca. 40-50 CE).

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • William Arnal
      ... Mark, I m afariad I m going to have to get up your nose about this again. I have very serious problems with this claim, and wish you d qualify it a little
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 7, 2001
        Mark Goodacre wrote:

        >I think there's a more major problem with the view that is not often
        >perceived and that is that Q often appears to presuppose material
        >in Mark / the triple tradition, e.g. that John's baptism was for
        >repentance (hence "You brood of vipers . . . bear fruit worthy of
        >repentance"), that Jesus was known to eat with tax-collectors and
        >sinners ("a glutton and a drunkard . . . .") and so on. So if there

        Mark, I'm afariad I'm going to have to get up your nose about this again. I
        have very serious problems with this claim, and wish you'd qualify it a
        little when you make it. I've noted in the past, it is not unreasonable to
        expect a sayings collection to assume certain facts about its characters, or
        indeed to CONVEY those facts via the sayings themselves (or their narrative
        frames), rather than through narrative. And indeed, some data that might
        appear to reflect certain narrative information from the gospels NEED not do
        so in the context of a sayings collection. An example: that John's baptism
        is for repentance absolutely need not be specified prior to John's speech in
        Q -- Q is replete with calls to repentance from both Jesus and John, so in
        fact John's words here are simply reflecting a recurrent Q redactional
        concern. Or again, that Jesus hung out with sinners need no more be
        narratively introduced for Q 7:34 to make sense than an episode where Jesus
        behaves like a glutton and drunkard is necessary. AQnother example that's
        probably clearer: q 11:19, "by whom do your sons exorcise?" What narrative
        is presupposed here?

        I think you've assembled LOTS of cogent arguments that would us want to
        think twice about Q, Mark, but this isn't one of them.

        Bill
        ___________________________
        William Arnal
        Department of Religion
        University of Manitoba



        _________________________________________________________________
        Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
      • Mark Goodacre
        Thanks for the comments, Bill. In response, several brief points: (1) Yes, I should have qualified the point a little; as it stands the paragraph was weak --
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 7, 2001
          Thanks for the comments, Bill. In response, several brief points:
          (1) Yes, I should have qualified the point a little; as it stands the
          paragraph was weak -- I'm sure you can sympathise with off the
          cuff responses : ) (2) The argument about narrative presupposed in
          Q sayings is something Goulder touches on in _Luke_, Chapter 2
          and it something that has not -- to my knowledge -- been directly
          answered by Q scholars. I made a similar case but in a different
          context in the SBL paper we discussed a while back; that paper
          appears in revised form as Chapter 9 in my _The Case Against Q_,
          out this fall/winter from Trinity. My contrast was specifically with
          the lack of such explicit historicizing elements in Thomas. (3) In
          the context of this email I was simply attempting to draw attention
          to the oddity that the case for Mark's use of Q is more common
          than the reverse case, something that is perhaps surprising given
          the elements presupposed in Q's sayings that have parallels in
          Mark -- but this is exactly what you are pointing to as unsurprising.
          I like the point about Q 11.19 and the exorcisms; another that
          occurs to me is the mention of "Chorazin", which presupposes
          miracles having taken place there that have not been narrated in
          Mark or Matthew; (4) With regard to the John the Baptist /
          repentance material, yes, on the assumption of Q it is a key
          redactional theme. Perhaps we should call it "quits" on this, but I
          am struck by the fact that John the Baptist's preaching of
          repentance is a key Matthaean redactional theme in this very
          context -- Matt. 3.2 R sets this up well + 3.11. So I think I have a
          slight edge on that one.

          Cheers
          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://NTGateway.com
          The New Testament Gateway
        • William Arnal
          ... Yes, I know, but, as you say, I really don t find this feature (the supposed presupposition of narrative material in Q) very surprising at all. But I
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 7, 2001
            Mark Goodacre wrote:

            >(3) In
            >the context of this email I was simply attempting to draw attention
            >to the oddity that the case for Mark's use of Q is more common
            >than the reverse case, something that is perhaps surprising given

            Yes, I know, but, as you say, I really don't find this feature (the supposed
            presupposition of narrative material in Q) very surprising at all. But I
            realize that wasn't your primary point. My own -- off the cuff -- guess as
            to why it is argued more often that Mark uses Q than that Q uses Mark is the
            simple prejudice that Q is "primitive" and therefore must be early. As
            though the development of Christianity were so precisely unilineaar!

            >the elements presupposed in Q's sayings that have parallels in
            >Mark -- but this is exactly what you are pointing to as unsurprising.
            >I like the point about Q 11.19 and the exorcisms; another that
            >occurs to me is the mention of "Chorazin", which presupposes
            >miracles having taken place there that have not been narrated in
            >Mark or Matthew;

            Yes, that's a GREAT example.

            >(4) With regard to the John the Baptist /
            >repentance material, yes, on the assumption of Q it is a key
            >redactional theme. Perhaps we should call it "quits" on this, but I
            >am struck by the fact that John the Baptist's preaching of
            >repentance is a key Matthaean redactional theme in this very
            >context -- Matt. 3.2 R sets this up well + 3.11. So I think I have a
            >slight edge on that one.

            Depends on the argument you're making. If the argument is that Q's
            presentation of John's preaching requires a narrative background, I say
            you're building a house on sand, since, on the Q hypothesis, this is a
            prominent redactional theme in any case. On the other hand, if you are
            arguing that Matthew emphasizes this theme and that it is thus Matthew who
            the source for this strong motif in the double tradition, well, you're are
            indeed building your house on a stone foundation, but this is an argument
            that has little to do with narrative or the absence thereof.

            But yeah, I'm okay with calling it quits on this one too. (But notice I had
            to try to slip in the last word.)

            Bill
            ___________________________
            William Arnal
            Department of Religion
            University of Manitoba



            _________________________________________________________________
            Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.