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

[Synoptic-L] Re: The Critical Edition of Q

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Is it really critical? Not as critical as it should be. For in describing Q as a written collection of sayings and stories it ignores the cogent arguments of
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 29, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Is it really critical?
      Not as critical as it should be.
      For in describing Q as "a written collection of sayings and stories"
      it ignores the cogent arguments of Goulder et al., not to mention Luke's
      own testimony (Luke 1:1), and continues to promote the myth that the
      amateurish Luke did not bother to get hold of a copy of the gospel of
      his predecessor Matthew.

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Zeba Crook
      ... An *intruduction* to Q, or to the Synoptic problem, would need to spend adequate time discussing counter-theories and objections to the hypothesis it
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 29, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Ron Price wrote:

        > Is it really critical?
        > Not as critical as it should be.
        > For in describing Q as "a written collection of sayings and stories"
        > it ignores the cogent arguments of Goulder et al., not to mention Luke's
        > own testimony (Luke 1:1), and continues to promote the myth that the
        > amateurish Luke did not bother to get hold of a copy of the gospel of
        > his predecessor Matthew.

        An *intruduction* to Q, or to the Synoptic problem, would need to spend
        adequate time discussing counter-theories and objections to the hypothesis
        it supports. This book, however, is clearly not an introduction to the
        topic; its sole purpose is to establish a critical text, which means they
        can rest on previous scholarship that has "proven" (depending on where one
        stands) its existence. A book like this does not present an argument
        (well, one could argue it does so obliquely, but that would be pedantic),
        therefore it it cannot be expected to present counter-arguments.

        This book will not be beyond criticism, even within the Q and 2DH camps,
        but it is hardly "critical" to criticise the book for something it does
        not set out to do (namely, defend the Q hypothesis).

        Zeb

        ********----------********

        Zeba Antonin Crook, PhD (Cand) ~
        University of St. Michael's College ` If voting could really
        81 St. Mary Street ~ change things,
        Toronto, ON, Canada ` it would be illegal.
        M5S 1J4 ~
      • Ron Price
        ... Zeb, You missed my point. Perhaps I didn t make it clear enough. I was not criticizing the book for failing to defend the Q hypothesis. After all it hasn t
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 29, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          I wrote:

          >> Is it really critical?
          >> Not as critical as it should be.
          >> For in describing Q as "a written collection of sayings and stories"
          >> it ignores the cogent arguments of Goulder et al., not to mention Luke's
          >> own testimony (Luke 1:1), and continues to promote the myth that the
          >> amateurish Luke did not bother to get hold of a copy of the gospel of
          >> his predecessor Matthew.

          Zeba Crook replied:

          >An *intruduction* to Q, or to the Synoptic problem, would need to spend
          >adequate time discussing counter-theories and objections to the hypothesis
          >it supports. This book, however, is clearly not an introduction to the
          >topic .......
          > it is hardly "critical" to criticise the book for something it does
          >not set out to do (namely, defend the Q hypothesis).

          Zeb,
          You missed my point. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough.
          I was not criticizing the book for failing to defend the Q hypothesis.
          After all it hasn't been published yet and I haven't read it, so for all
          I know it might have an introduction which *does* defend the Q
          hypothesis.
          Instead I was criticizing the authors' acceptance of a hypothesis
          which an increasing number of people are coming to realize is seriously
          flawed.
          Of course, I wouldn't criticize the standard Q hypothesis so sharply
          if I weren't convinced that there is a perfectly satisfactory
          alternative solution to the Synoptic Problem. :-)

          Ron Price

          Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

          e-mail: ron.price@...

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 4/29/2000 7:09:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes:
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 29, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 4/29/2000 7:09:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
            ron.price@... writes:

            << Is it really critical?
            Not as critical as it should be.
            For in describing Q as "a written collection of sayings and stories"
            it ignores the cogent arguments of Goulder et al., not to mention Luke's
            own testimony (Luke 1:1), and continues to promote the myth that the
            amateurish Luke did not bother to get hold of a copy of the gospel of
            his predecessor Matthew.>>

            Since Ron and I rarely agree, I will not miss this opportunity to express
            full support for the above sentiments. In light of Goulder's work, if nothing
            else, I find it surprising that anyone today is wasting precious time with Q
            research.

            Leonard Maluf
          • Mark Goodacre
            ... But then it is of course a major presupposition behind the work of practically all contemporary Q theorists that Matthew and Luke were independent of one
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 29, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Ron Price wrote:
              >
              > > Is it really critical?
              > > Not as critical as it should be.
              > > For in describing Q as "a written collection of sayings and stories"
              > > it ignores the cogent arguments of Goulder et al., not to mention Luke's
              > > own testimony (Luke 1:1), and continues to promote the myth that the
              > > amateurish Luke did not bother to get hold of a copy of the gospel of
              > > his predecessor Matthew.

              But then it is of course a major presupposition behind the work of
              practically all contemporary Q theorists that Matthew and Luke
              were independent of one another -- indeed that is the major
              prerequisite of the entire work of the IQP in attempting to
              reconstruct Q. As I was saying earlier on to the esteemed Dr
              Head, is not attempting to reconstruct Q an entirely honourable
              thing to do if indeed one accepts the theory of its existence? What
              I say is: let's have a look at it; let's analyse it and see whether the
              Critical Text does make sense in showing us a discreet document
              with its own parameters, its own textual history, its own style, its
              own theology, or whether it looks more like the Lukan material
              extrapolated from non-Markan Matthew.

              As far as the presupposition is concerned, the question is: on what
              grounds is it maintained by participants in the IQP that Luke and
              Matthew are likely to have used Mark independently of one
              another? As far as I am aware, none of the major players in the
              IQP have published major studies of the Synoptic Problem in which
              this is defended. Hoffmann and, to an even greater extent,
              Robinson take the hypothesis for granted, but I look forward to
              Kloppenborg's _Excavating Q_, due out soon, in which there is
              some discussion of the Synoptic Problem.

              On 29 Apr 00, at 8:44, Zeba Crook wrote:

              > An *intruduction* to Q, or to the Synoptic problem, would need to spend
              > adequate time discussing counter-theories and objections to the hypothesis
              > it supports. This book, however, is clearly not an introduction to the
              > topic; its sole purpose is to establish a critical text, which means they
              > can rest on previous scholarship that has "proven" (depending on where one
              > stands) its existence. A book like this does not present an argument
              > (well, one could argue it does so obliquely, but that would be pedantic),
              > therefore it it cannot be expected to present counter-arguments.

              One should perhaps add too that the Critical Edition is also the
              culmination of years of painstaking research, the more detailed
              versions of which are available in _Documenta Q_. One of the
              interesting elements in the latter is that Q sceptical opinions *are*
              included in the database, particularly those of Goulder. There
              seemed to be a change between the first volume (on the Lord's
              Prayer) and the second (on Q 4.1-13, 16) in this respect. My only
              criticism would be that Goulder's views tend to be included among
              those "pro" or "con" given wording in Q rather than in its own
              section. I would have liked to have seen Q sceptical opinions
              contained in their own separate section outside of the "pro" and
              "con" of given wording.

              One last thought: I reckon that it might not be pedantic to say that
              the Critical Text in a way does present an "argument". Consider,
              for example, Austin Farrer's comments about the impossibility of
              reconstructing Q in "On Dispensing". One might well hold up the
              Critical Text and say, "See; it can be done!" and thus we have
              another argument for its existence. I can't help thinking too that
              many do see the work of reconstruction as providing a kind of
              "argument", e.g by Mack in _Lost Gospel_ or by Robinson in
              various places. The rhetoric is often to say that now we've got Q;
              here, it exists before our very eyes.

              Mark
              ---------------------------
              Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
              Dept of Theology
              University of Birmingham Fax.: +44 (0)121 414 6866
              Birmingham B15 2TT Tel.: +44 (0)121 414 7512

              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
              All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
              New Testament Gateway
              Mark Without Q
              Aseneth Home Page
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 4/29/2000 8:02:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk writes:
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 30, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 4/29/2000 8:02:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

                << As far as the presupposition is concerned, the question is: on what
                grounds is it maintained by participants in the IQP that Luke and
                Matthew are likely to have used Mark independently of one
                another? >>

                "The grounds" on which this is maintained are related, to a great extent, to
                the theory of Markan priority itself. The implicit logic of the thinking of
                most proponents of Q regarding Luke's independence of Matt could, I think, be
                expressed in the following syllogism:

                A given author is very unlikely to have used two similar sources in entirely
                different ways,

                But Luke's relationship to Mark (which he certainly knew and used) is quite
                literal and faithful to the original ...,

                And Luke's relationship to Matthew is hardly of this kind,

                Therefore, it is impossible, or extremely unlikely, that Luke (also) knew and
                used Matt.

                Thus, if I may say so somewhat provocatively in this forum, the theory of
                Markan priority is certainly one of the strongest logical pillars of Q
                itself, and hence also an adequate justification for Q research.

                Leonard Maluf
              • Ron Price
                ... Mark, Yes indeed. In my opinion this is where the Q theorists have gone wrong. This is their blind spot. (Obviously it would have been possible for them
                Message 7 of 10 , May 1, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mark Goodacre wrote:

                  > ....... it is of course a major presupposition behind the work of
                  >practically all contemporary Q theorists that Matthew and Luke
                  >were independent of one another -- indeed that is the major
                  >prerequisite of the entire work of the IQP in attempting to
                  >reconstruct Q.

                  Mark,
                  Yes indeed. In my opinion this is where the Q theorists have gone
                  wrong. This is their blind spot. (Obviously it would have been possible
                  for them to have tried to reconstruct the sayings source evidenced by
                  doublets and occasional Lukan primitivity with a different
                  presupposition: that Luke used Matthew as a third, subsidiary source.)

                  > ....... is not attempting to reconstruct Q an entirely honourable
                  >thing to do if indeed one accepts the theory of its existence?

                  It is partly based on a false presupposition. But it is not
                  dishonourable.

                  > What I say is: let's have a look at it; let's analyse it .......

                  Quite right. I see nothing wrong with this. It may or may not reveal
                  further inconsistencies.

                  But no amount of detailed analysis can hide the clumsiness of the
                  "document" at a macro level. In my judgement the standard Q with its
                  peculiar way of mixing narratives and sayings is simply not credible as
                  a stand-alone historical document.

                  Ron Price

                  Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                  e-mail: ron.price@...

                  Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                • Yuri Kuchinsky
                  ... Dear Ron, I think the keywords here are standard Q hypothesis . Standard Q hypothesis may well have some serious problems, as many posters here noted
                  Message 8 of 10 , May 2, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----------
                    > From: Ron Price <ron.price@...>
                    > To: Synoptic-L@...
                    > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: The Critical Edition of Q
                    > Date: Saturday, April 29, 2000 3:26 PM

                    ...

                    > Of course, I wouldn't criticize the standard Q hypothesis so sharply
                    > if I weren't convinced that there is a perfectly satisfactory
                    > alternative solution to the Synoptic Problem. :-)

                    Dear Ron,

                    I think the keywords here are "standard Q hypothesis". Standard Q
                    hypothesis may well have some serious problems, as many posters here noted
                    already.

                    Myself, I'm now less convinced by the Q hypothesis than I once was. It's
                    indeed possible that this was never a separate and self-contained gospel.
                    Especially the new evidence as outlined by Howard and Niclos is highly
                    telling in this regard. Somehow I doubt that the Q Project is aware of
                    this, but they should have been. After all, Howard's book came out in 1995.
                    So in this sense their work already may be obsolete in a sense.

                    The Q now seems to me like it may refer to the loose (or even partly
                    connected) collections of sayings that existed in various forms in 1st and
                    2nd centuries. One thing that can hardly be denied by Q critics is that
                    such loose sayings collections did exist. Surely some such collections were
                    used by Mt (and also possibly by Mk), even if we assume that Lk is wholly
                    derivative of Mk/Mt.

                    But neither the latter would be quite correct, pace Goulder. You may recall
                    that I recently posted a long post where I demonstrated that in the case of
                    the anointing scene Lk seems to preserve the earliest version. Hardly seems
                    like this derived from Mk/Mt. And there are also other instances where Lk
                    seems to preserve some important very early features, which contradicts the
                    assertions about Lukan posteriority in every and each case. So, my advice,
                    beware of all rigid and simplified "one-step" Synoptic solutions.

                    As to Kloppenborg's stratification proposals, they may still be partly
                    valid even if applied to loose collections.

                    Regards,

                    Yuri.

                    Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                    Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

                    The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                    equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 5/2/2000 3:17:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yuku@globalserve.net writes:
                    Message 9 of 10 , May 2, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 5/2/2000 3:17:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                      yuku@... writes:

                      << You may recall
                      that I recently posted a long post where I demonstrated that in the case of
                      the anointing scene Lk seems to preserve the earliest version. Hardly seems
                      like this derived from Mk/Mt >>

                      I recall your attempt to demonstrate this point, but I also recall being more
                      than usually unimpressed by the validity of your argument. You ignore, for
                      one thing, the arguments of scholars that show this story to be secondarily
                      adapted by Luke to serve as an illustration of his theology of forgiveness of
                      sins by Jesus predicted by John the Baptist, who, in Luke's view (contra
                      Matt) shows John preaching a baptism of repentance (administered by himself)
                      unto (eis) the remission of sins (effected by Jesus) (see the setting of the
                      story of the woman-sinner in Lk 7).

                      By the way, this alternative view of the history of this story reveals a
                      serious ambiguity in your final statement and what it is taken to imply:
                      "Hardly seems like this derived from Mk/Mt". You apparently conclude from
                      this that Luke's version must have preceded Matthew's (or Mark's, or both).
                      This does not necessarily follow at all. A later version, dependent for
                      substance on an earlier version, can very well nevertheless seem, in other
                      respects, not to "derive" from the earlier one. It all depends on how
                      creative an author is at work with the material in question. In my judgment,
                      the story of the woman as told in Lk 7 clearly reflects a theology of
                      forgiveness of sins through the agency of Jesus that marks it, together with
                      many other passages of Lk and Acts, as secondary to the Gospel of Matthew at
                      least, and contemporary with the redactive activity of Luke himself.

                      Leonard Maluf
                    • Yuri Kuchinsky
                      ... of ... seems ... more ... for ... secondarily ... forgiveness of ... himself) ... the ... both). ... other ... Yes, Leonard, it can, but generally, as you
                      Message 10 of 10 , May 3, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ----------
                        > From: Maluflen@...
                        > To: Synoptic-L@...
                        > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: The Critical Edition of Q
                        > Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 4:10 PM
                        >
                        > In a message dated 5/2/2000 3:17:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                        > yuku@... writes:
                        >
                        > << You may recall
                        > that I recently posted a long post where I demonstrated that in the case
                        of
                        > the anointing scene Lk seems to preserve the earliest version. Hardly
                        seems
                        > like this derived from Mk/Mt >>
                        >
                        > I recall your attempt to demonstrate this point, but I also recall being
                        more
                        > than usually unimpressed by the validity of your argument. You ignore,
                        for
                        > one thing, the arguments of scholars that show this story to be
                        secondarily
                        > adapted by Luke to serve as an illustration of his theology of
                        forgiveness of
                        > sins by Jesus predicted by John the Baptist, who, in Luke's view (contra
                        > Matt) shows John preaching a baptism of repentance (administered by
                        himself)
                        > unto (eis) the remission of sins (effected by Jesus) (see the setting of
                        the
                        > story of the woman-sinner in Lk 7).
                        >
                        > By the way, this alternative view of the history of this story reveals a
                        > serious ambiguity in your final statement and what it is taken to imply:
                        > "Hardly seems like this derived from Mk/Mt". You apparently conclude from

                        > this that Luke's version must have preceded Matthew's (or Mark's, or
                        both).
                        > This does not necessarily follow at all. A later version, dependent for
                        > substance on an earlier version, can very well nevertheless seem, in
                        other
                        > respects, not to "derive" from the earlier one.

                        Yes, Leonard, it can, but generally, as you must admit, a later version,
                        dependent for substance on an earlier version, does betray its derivation
                        from the earlier one.

                        > It all depends on how
                        > creative an author is at work with the material in question. In my
                        judgment,
                        > the story of the woman as told in Lk 7 clearly reflects a theology of
                        > forgiveness of sins through the agency of Jesus that marks it, together
                        with
                        > many other passages of Lk and Acts, as secondary to the Gospel of Matthew
                        at
                        > least, and contemporary with the redactive activity of Luke himself.

                        So you think this story is secondarily adapted by Luke to serve as an
                        illustration of his theology of forgiveness of sins by Jesus predicted by
                        John the Baptist?

                        Well, Leonard, lots of things are possible, but are they probable? After
                        all, it's also possible that Boston in England derived its name from
                        Boston, Massachusetts?

                        Besides, is your counter-proposal really falsifiable, in the Popperian
                        sense? How would one falsify your theory? In other words, how would one set
                        about disproving that this story is secondarily adapted by Luke to serve as
                        an illustration of his theology of forgiveness of sins by Jesus predicted
                        by John the Baptist?

                        Let me remind you that those theories that are not falsifiable are
                        generally not considered scientific.

                        And you have the following points still to deal with,

                        - anointing seems like an intrusion in the text of Mt/Mk
                        - this scene contains some clearly late features in Mt/Mk

                        And you're not even beginning to deal with all the issues associated with
                        the Pepysian Gospels as yet.

                        Regards,

                        Yuri.

                        Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                        Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

                        The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                        equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.