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


Expand Messages
  • Jim Deardorff
    Mark G., Your recent mention of Kloppenborg s book _The Formation of Q_ caused me to check it out and look at it. I was appalled to see that the assumption
    Message 1 of 1 , May 20, 1998
      Mark G.,

      Your recent mention of Kloppenborg's book _The Formation of Q_ caused me to
      check it out and look at it. I was appalled to see that the assumption that
      Q must have been a real document has by now, or had already by 1987, become
      so ingrained that its original definition has seemingly been forgotten.
      Forgotten is that Q was defined to be just the Luke-Matthew double
      tradition. Instead, he allows Q to contain more than is in the double
      tradition in some instances, and less in others (p. 42). So he doesn't have
      to be concerned with spots where Mark can be judged to have had access to Q.

      I notice that he allows for Q to contain its own redactions, implying it had
      been a document that had circulated around a fair amount, as the assumption
      of Q's different strata would also imply. But I didn't notice where he ever
      mentioned any surprise that despite such multiple usage of Q it was never
      referenced anywhere. And he makes no argument that Q had contained
      unacceptable or heretical elements that needed redaction, and that would
      thus explain why it never survived or was never mentioned by any early
      church fathers. Should he have ignored the argument of silence to all that

      On pp. 42-46 Kloppenborg discusses the verses of very high verbal agreement
      between Luke & Matthew's Q, versus those of low agreement, and simply
      concludes from the former that Q must have been written, not oral. But I
      don't see that he ever tried to explain the presence of those Q verses of
      low verbal agreement. He leaves that topic alone, (hopefully?) to be
      forgotten by the reader. With the AH, the explanation emerges easily from
      the translator of Matthew into Greek having had Luke (and Mark) in front of
      him. Those verses in Luke that were a satisfactory translation of Matthew,
      though entirely out of context, the translator could copy verbatim, thereby
      letting it be known that the writer of Luke had not succeeded in disguising
      his usage of Matthew. Other Lucan verses derived from Matthew, which
      deviated too far from Hebraic Matthew's content, could not be translated
      verbatim using Luke's Greek and still do justice to Hebraic Matthew's content.

      Jim Deardorff
      Corvallis, Oregon
      E-mail: deardorj@...
      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.