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

Re: SBL and the Synoptic Problem

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    ... Dear Mark, You have stated this a number of times already, and I ve tried to correct you a number of times already. I m hoping it will work this time. Q
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 6, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Mark Goodacre wrote:

      > ...the Q sceptic will remain concerned about the presupposition that
      > Matthew and Luke were independent of one another, on which the Q
      > theory depends,

      Dear Mark,

      You have stated this a number of times already, and I've tried to correct
      you a number of times already. I'm hoping it will work this time.

      Q theory does not depend on Matthew and Luke being independent of one
      another. OTOH a _poorly formulated_ Q theory does depend on Matthew and
      Luke being independent of one another.

      > as important an assumption for Kirk as for other Q theorists.

      Not at all.

      > Without this presupposition, the necessity for hypothesising the
      > existence of Q as a discrete source disappears.

      This is not correct.

      Trying to refute a poorly formulated theory as opposed to a well
      formulated theory is usually known as a straw man argument.

      With best wishes,

      Yuri.

      Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

      http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

      The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
      equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
    • Thomas R.W. Longstaff
      ... This is confirmed by an article published some years ago which demonstrated rather clearly that Q is whatever you make it. Originally the Q hypothesis
      Message 2 of 15 , Dec 6, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

        >
        > On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Mark Goodacre wrote:
        >
        > > ...the Q sceptic will remain concerned about the presupposition that
        > > Matthew and Luke were independent of one another, on which the Q
        > > theory depends,
        >
        > Dear Mark,
        >
        > You have stated this a number of times already, and I've tried to correct
        > you a number of times already. I'm hoping it will work this time.
        >
        > Q theory does not depend on Matthew and Luke being independent of one
        > another. OTOH a _poorly formulated_ Q theory does depend on Matthew and
        > Luke being independent of one another.

        This is confirmed by an article published some years ago which
        demonstrated rather clearly that

        "Q is whatever you make it."

        Originally the Q hypothesis was proposed to explain the agreements
        of Matthew and Luke, each taken to be dependent on Mark, assuming (or
        concluding) that neither was dependent on the other. Since then Q
        has taken on a life of its own and been fashioned into an entirely new
        entity made, it seems, of the same fabric as the emperor's new
        clothes.
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Thomas Longstaff wrote - ... I agree that Q is whatever you make it. I would want to add, however, that every synoptic hypothesis is whatever you make it.
        Message 3 of 15 , Dec 7, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Thomas Longstaff wrote -
          >
          >This is confirmed by an article published some years ago which
          >demonstrated rather clearly that
          >
          > "Q is whatever you make it."
          >
          >Originally the Q hypothesis was proposed to explain the agreements
          >of Matthew and Luke, each taken to be dependent on Mark, assuming (or
          >concluding) that neither was dependent on the other. Since then Q
          >has taken on a life of its own and been fashioned into an entirely new
          >entity made, it seems, of the same fabric as the emperor's new
          >clothes.
          >
          I agree that Q is whatever you make it. I would want to add, however,
          that every synoptic hypothesis is whatever you make it. The hypotheses
          put forward by J.J.Griesbach, B.H.Streeter, A. Farrer, R.Lindsey, or
          whoever, are each the product of the mind which formulated them. They
          are all made of exactly the same invisible material - human
          inventiveness. They are not supplied tailor-made, not even to emperors.
          You have to think it out for yourself, like a soft-ware engineer
          creating a computer program out of his own head.

          Then, once you have done this, the question is whether your hypothesis
          fits the observed facts well. If it does not, dispose of it. If it
          does, put it on record so that others can make use of it.

          It does not matter in the slightest by which route you arrive at your
          synoptic hypothesis. What matters is whether it works.

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON

          HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk "No tailors today, thank you."
          E-MAIL: brian@...
          SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
          10 York Close, Godmanchester,
          Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... I am always happy, of course, to be corrected : ) Yet my apparent stubbornness is a function of my taking Q theorists at their word. Who am I to argue
          Message 4 of 15 , Dec 7, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            I wrote:

            > > ...the Q sceptic will remain concerned about the presupposition that
            > > Matthew and Luke were independent of one another, on which the Q
            > > theory depends,

            On 6 Dec 98 at 15:21, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
            >
            > You have stated this a number of times already, and I've tried to correct you
            > a number of times already. I'm hoping it will work this time.
            >
            > Q theory does not depend on Matthew and Luke being independent of one
            > another. OTOH a _poorly formulated_ Q theory does depend on Matthew and
            > Luke being independent of one another.

            I am always happy, of course, to be corrected : ) Yet my apparent stubbornness
            is a function of my taking Q theorists at their word. Who am I to argue with
            authorities like Tuckett who state that the Q theory depends on the
            independence of Matthew and Luke?

            On 6 Dec 98 at 21:49, Thomas R.W. Longstaff wrote:

            > This is confirmed by an article published some years ago which
            > demonstrated rather clearly that
            >
            > "Q is whatever you make it."
            >
            > Originally the Q hypothesis was proposed to explain the agreements
            > of Matthew and Luke, each taken to be dependent on Mark, assuming (or
            > concluding) that neither was dependent on the other. Since then Q
            > has taken on a life of its own and been fashioned into an entirely new
            > entity made, it seems, of the same fabric as the emperor's new
            > clothes.
            >
            The article is S. Petrie, "Q is Only What you make it", NovT 3 (1959), pp.
            28-33. I am not sure that I agree with Petrie, particularly in the light of
            Q scholarship since he wrote the article. Although there is an inevitable
            extent to which Q is fuzzy round the edges and flexible in its application, we
            are all agreed about the bedrock Q data, viz. the 200 verses or so of double
            tradition material. Further, I am not one of those who underestimates the work
            of the International Q Project. Here reputable international scholars have
            worked hard to produce a phenomenal database on Q alongside a reconstruction of
            a critical text, with decisions carefully argued and clearly recorded. A
            striking degree of consensus has emerged, and even Q theorists outside the
            project (e.g. Dale Allison & Christopher Tuckett; cf. Neirynck) are inclined to
            value the results highly. Would all this have been possible if "Q is only what
            you make it"?

            I do agree with Thomas, however, that Q has taken on a life of its own. It has
            jumped out of the texts of Matthew and Luke, in which it used to be embedded,
            and has taken on a full identity of its own with a distinctive theology, genre
            and community. Yet I think that I would want to maintain that in all recent Q
            scholarship, the independence of Matthew and Luke from each other remains a
            basic assumption. Indeed I would argue that it is a fundamental
            presupposition that lies at the heart of the entire International Q
            Project's attempt to reconstruct its text.

            Mark
            --------------------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

            Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
            --------------------------------------

            Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
            Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.