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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Apr 30, 2000
      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 2 of 10 , May 1 3:24 AM
        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 3 of 10 , May 2 12:17 PM
          ----------
          > 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 4 of 10 , May 2 1:10 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. 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 5 of 10 , May 3 10:38 AM
              ----------
              > 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.