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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , May 1, 2000
    View Source
    • 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      a stand-alone historical document.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 2 of 10 , May 2, 2000
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 10 , May 2, 2000
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 10 , May 3, 2000
          View Source
          • 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.