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

Re: [Synoptic-L] excavating Q

Expand Messages
  • jwest@highland.net
    ... which was not interesting is i suppose what you mean. thats fair enough. ... i disagree. the question was not poorly conceived- it was simple. there is
    Message 1 of 24 , Sep 30 4:47 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      > At 10:29 PM 9/29/00 -0400, Jim West wrote:

      > That's because I was answering Jeff's question, which was pretty
      > interesting, not yours.

      which was not interesting is i suppose what you mean. thats fair enough.

      > But even so, my point #5 explains why
      > your question ("is the Q hypothesis the most viable solution to
      > the so called synoptic problem?") is poorly conceived and can be
      > answered with a simple "no."

      i disagree. the question was not poorly conceived- it was simple. there is a
      vast difference between the two. a poorly conceived question is one for which
      there is no answer. a simple question is one which can be answered without
      diverting oneself into a hundred side issues.

      > The Q hypothesis is only a partial
      > hypothesis, and as such cannot be a viable solution to the synoptic
      > problem. Simply put, it is incomplete -- it answers only one
      > question: how do we account for the double tradition?

      I disagree again. It is the root question of the synoptic problem. as the
      root question if it is solved the remaining issues in synoptic studies are also
      solved. it is therefore not incomplete, but the foundational question.

      >
      > For the Q hypothesis to be part of a a viable synoptic *theory*,
      > it must be combined with a hypothesis that explains the origin
      > of the triple tradition, which the Q hypothesis does not explain.

      this is an erroneous assumption, in my view. if you would be so kind as to
      explain why it is that the Q hypothesis has to be combined with some other
      theory to answer the specific question of the triple tradition i would be
      grateful; for it is itself the answer to the triple tradition. Q, utilized by
      Matt and Luke, as supplemental to Mark, results in the Gospel tradition. What
      else do we need?

      > For example, the Q hypothesis may be combined with the Markan
      > priority hypothesis, and we'll get the standard Two Document
      > Theory.

      i dont think that marcan priority can be called a theory any longer. i think
      it stands as an established fact.
      (yes- fact!).

      > If the Q hypothesis is combined with an Ur-Markus
      > hypothesis, then we'll get another theory (misleadingly called
      > the Marcan hypothesis). If we combine the Q hypothesis with
      > a proto-Matthew hypothesis, then we'll get Pierson Parker's theory.
      > In fact, a Q hypothesis can even be combined with a Griesbach
      > hypothesis to get Rolland's Theory.

      And if we combine Q with an elephant we will get an even more interesting
      gospel hypothsis... all of which spins off into the realm of even wilder
      speculation. may i recommend the application of occam's razor to the synoptic
      problem? we can spin theories till we are all blue in the face (and THAT is
      precisely what has been done!) but the simplest solution is the most viable.
      the rest are progressively more and more wildly speculative and pregressively
      less viable.

      >
      > So, to answer your question, Jim: "No."

      i KNEW you could do it! you just had to be pressed a bit. Thanks for
      appearing on our little version of "Meet the Press". ;-)


      best,

      Jim
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Jim West wrote -- ... Which Q hypothesis? According to W. Schmittals, Mark was a documentary ancestor of Q (sic), according to D. Zeller and H. T. Fleddermann
      Message 2 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim West wrote --
        >
        >In your opinion, is the Q hypothesis the most viable solution to the so
        >called synoptic problem?
        >

        Which Q hypothesis?

        According to W. Schmittals, Mark was a documentary ancestor of Q (sic),
        according to D. Zeller and H. T. Fleddermann Q was a documentary
        ancestor of Mark, according to M. -E. Boismard, neither Q nor Mk was
        used by Mt or Lk, according to R. Price Q was the ancestor of both Mt
        and Lk, but Mt was also the ancestor of Lk, according to Streeter Q was
        the ancestor of Mt and Lk but Mt was not the ancestor of Lk, and so on.

        What Q is depends on the hypothesis which contains it. To discuss the
        viability of Q meaningfully, we have to state fully the hypothesis to
        which Q belongs. The viability of Q varies from Q hypothesis to Q
        hypothesis. When someone writes of Q, or of the Q hypothesis, we should
        immediately raise the question of which Q, or which Q hypothesis, is
        being considered.

        If we do not do this, we do not know what Q contained. Did it contain
        the Baptism of Jesus, as Crossan, Grundmann, Harnack, Hoffmann, Hunter,
        Jacobson, Luz, Marshall, Schmithals, Shurmann, Streeter, Taylor
        Vasiliadis, Weiss and Zeller all insisted? Or did it not, as Kloppenborg
        and others maintain?

        My answer to Jim's question is therefore that I do not understand it,
        and I suspect it is meaningless.

        Best wishes,
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... Yes. I m beginning to believe that any source critic who proposes a hypothetical document must also propose a reconstruction of that document, so that
        Message 3 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          At 04:48 PM 10/1/00 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
          >What Q is depends on the hypothesis which contains it. To discuss the
          >viability of Q meaningfully, we have to state fully the hypothesis to
          >which Q belongs. The viability of Q varies from Q hypothesis to Q
          >hypothesis. When someone writes of Q, or of the Q hypothesis, we should
          >immediately raise the question of which Q, or which Q hypothesis, is
          >being considered.

          Yes. I'm beginning to believe that any source critic who proposes
          a hypothetical document must also propose a reconstruction of that
          document, so that others can properly evaluate the proposed theory.

          As for Q, it is good to see that the International Q Project is
          meticulously reconstructing a Q with extensive documentation of
          each of their decisions. The IQP should be applauded for it.

          Stephen Carlson
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... My knowledge of Rolland s theory is mediated through Neirynck s exposition of it. If you look at the figure on page 306 of his EVANGELICA II, it shows in
          Message 4 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            At 06:52 AM 9/30/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
            >In a message dated 9/29/2000 11:13:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            >scarlson@... writes:
            >>In fact, a Q hypothesis can even be combined with a Griesbach
            >>hypothesis to get Rolland's Theory.
            >
            >Stephen, does this accurately describe Philippe Rolland's theory? I have read
            >articles by him in the past and don't recall ever coming away with such a
            >neat impression (I mean I have never seen his view summarized in these
            >terms). I am not doubting your accuracy, only asking for further
            >clarification, if such be needed.

            My knowledge of Rolland's theory is mediated through Neirynck's
            exposition of it. If you look at the figure on page 306 of his
            EVANGELICA II, it shows in Neirynck's explanation of Rolland,
            that Mark is a conflation of a proto-Matthew and a proto-Luke.
            There is also a Q source that is combined with proto-Matthew and
            proto-Luke to produce Matthew and Luke, respectively. Rolland's
            term for this Q source is Évangile des Craignant-Dieu.

            On page 320, Neirynck cites his own article in INTERRELATIONS (ed.
            Dungan; 1990) by "p. 16 à propos de la double tradition: l'hypothèse
            de Q acceptée sans difficulté. P. Rolland a raison d'insister sur
            ce qui distingue sa propre théorie de celle de Griesbach (lettre du
            20-3-91; voir notre conclusion ci-dessus), mais l'essentiel de la
            théorie de Griesbach n'est-ce pas la conflation des deux évangiles,
            matthéen et lucanien, dans celui de Marc? Rolland est d'accord qu'on
            parle à son sujet <<d'un Griesbach *modifié*>>."

            Stephen Carlson
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
            Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
            "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
          • Jim West
            ... q + mk = mt and lk (with M and L respectively)- this is the classical q hypothesis. this is the one most people think of whn asked a simple question about
            Message 5 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              At 04:48 PM 10/1/00 +0100, you wrote:

              >Which Q hypothesis?
              >
              >According to W. Schmittals, Mark was a documentary ancestor of Q (sic),
              >according to D. Zeller and H. T. Fleddermann Q was a documentary
              >ancestor of Mark, according to M. -E. Boismard, neither Q nor Mk was
              >used by Mt or Lk, according to R. Price Q was the ancestor of both Mt
              >and Lk, but Mt was also the ancestor of Lk, according to Streeter Q was
              >the ancestor of Mt and Lk but Mt was not the ancestor of Lk, and so on.
              >
              >What Q is depends on the hypothesis which contains it. To discuss the
              >viability of Q meaningfully, we have to state fully the hypothesis to
              >which Q belongs. The viability of Q varies from Q hypothesis to Q
              >hypothesis. When someone writes of Q, or of the Q hypothesis, we should
              >immediately raise the question of which Q, or which Q hypothesis, is
              >being considered.

              q + mk = mt and lk (with M and L respectively)- this is the classical q
              hypothesis. this is the one most people think of whn asked a simple
              question about the issue.

              >
              >If we do not do this, we do not know what Q contained. Did it contain
              >the Baptism of Jesus, as Crossan, Grundmann, Harnack, Hoffmann, Hunter,
              >Jacobson, Luz, Marshall, Schmithals, Shurmann, Streeter, Taylor
              >Vasiliadis, Weiss and Zeller all insisted? Or did it not, as Kloppenborg
              >and others maintain?

              i didnt ask about all that now did i?

              >
              >My answer to Jim's question is therefore that I do not understand it,
              >and I suspect it is meaningless.

              everyone else seems to have understood it. perhaps you are having
              difficulty seeing the forest for the trees. again, it was a simple question-
              notwithstanding all the equivocating thats going on in response to it.

              still hoping to find diogenes out there somewhere....


              jim

              ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

              "I like to eat lettuce, but I always eat only the heart; in my opinion the
              leaves are for the pigs" S. Kierkegaard.

              Jim West, ThD
              http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... If you ask the experts, this is the classical Two Document Hypothesis. If you want a straight answer, it would help to ask a straight question, i.e., one
              Message 6 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                At 01:54 PM 10/1/00 -0400, Jim West wrote:
                >q + mk = mt and lk (with M and L respectively)- this is the classical q
                >hypothesis. this is the one most people think of whn asked a simple
                >question about the issue.

                If you ask the experts, this is the classical "Two Document Hypothesis."

                If you want a straight answer, it would help to ask a straight question,
                i.e., one that uses the correct terminology.

                Stephen Carlson
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
              • Jim West
                ... yes of course-- of which Q is the constituent document number 1 while mark is document 2-- hence the very clever name- two document hypothesis.. whats
                Message 7 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 02:36 PM 10/1/00 -0400, you wrote:

                  >>q + mk = mt and lk (with M and L respectively)- this is the classical q
                  >>hypothesis. this is the one most people think of whn asked a simple
                  >>question about the issue.
                  >
                  >If you ask the experts, this is the classical "Two Document Hypothesis."

                  yes of course-- of which Q is the constituent document number 1 while mark
                  is document 2-- hence the very clever name- two document hypothesis.. whats
                  your point?

                  >
                  >If you want a straight answer, it would help to ask a straight question,
                  >i.e., one that uses the correct terminology.

                  i did. whether you call it oranges or citrus fruit of an orange nature, its
                  still the same thing. but i see you have succumbed to pedantry instead of a
                  discussion of the issue. well and good. i submit, however, and again, that
                  this is PRECISELY why scholarship is unable to advance in this area beyond
                  the entrenched positions of its many representatives. rather than honestly
                  and openly discussing the topic at hand we are forced to deride, denigrate,
                  and subliminally insult our discussion partners. small wonder the whole
                  field of biblical studies is held in low regard by the general populace who
                  see us as small squabblers making much ado about nothing.

                  finis.

                  jim


                  >
                  >Stephen Carlson
                  >--
                  >Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  >Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                  >"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                  >
                  >
                  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                  memento o homo! quod cinis es et in cinerem revertaris

                  Jim West, ThD
                  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                • Brian E. Wilson
                  Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Stephen Carlson commented -- ... Stephen, I would say that a source critic cannot even begin a reconstruction of a hypothetical
                  Message 8 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Brian Wilson wrote --
                    >
                    >What Q is depends on the hypothesis which contains it. To discuss the
                    >viability of Q meaningfully, we have to state fully the hypothesis to
                    >which Q belongs. The viability of Q varies from Q hypothesis to Q
                    >hypothesis. When someone writes of Q, or of the Q hypothesis, we should
                    >immediately raise the question of which Q, or which Q hypothesis, is
                    >being considered.
                    >
                    Stephen Carlson commented --
                    >
                    >Yes. I'm beginning to believe that any source critic who proposes
                    >a hypothetical document must also propose a reconstruction of that
                    >document, so that others can properly evaluate the proposed theory.
                    >
                    Stephen,
                    I would say that a source critic cannot even begin a
                    reconstruction of a hypothetical source unless he has defined his
                    hypothesis. His reconstruction is then inferred by applying the
                    hypothesis to the synoptic gospels, just as presumably the IQP is
                    applying their "Q hypothesis" to Mt, Mk and Lk in order to make their
                    decisions on what was in Q.
                    >
                    >As for Q, it is good to see that the International Q Project is
                    >meticulously reconstructing a Q with extensive documentation of
                    >each of their decisions. The IQP should be applauded for it.
                    >
                    Has the IQP actually defined their "Q hypothesis"? If so, it might be
                    interesting to know what it states. If not, I am not sure what the
                    applause would be for.

                    Could anyone tell us what definition of "Q hypothesis" (or "Q") the IQP
                    is using?

                    Or has Jim West already told us, perhaps? :)

                    Best wishes,
                    BRIAN WILSON

                    E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                    Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                    > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                    > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                    _
                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                    ... I think it all depends on what you mean by defined. I am applauding them for reconstructing Q *and* documenting their decisions every step of the way.
                    Message 9 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 08:45 PM 10/1/00 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                      >Has the IQP actually defined their "Q hypothesis"? If so, it might be
                      >interesting to know what it states. If not, I am not sure what the
                      >applause would be for.

                      I think it all depends on what you mean by "defined." I am applauding
                      them for reconstructing Q *and* documenting their decisions every step
                      of the way. This transparency allows the interested critic to evaluate
                      their work with having to guess or "infer" what their reasoning is.

                      Stephen Carlson
                      --
                      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                    • Brian E. Wilson
                      Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Stephen Carlson replied -- ... is. ... Stephen, I wonder whether it does allow the interested critic to do this unless the IQP have
                      Message 10 of 24 , Oct 2, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Brian Wilson wrote --
                        >
                        >Has the IQP actually defined their "Q hypothesis"? If so, it might be
                        >interesting to know what it states.
                        >
                        Stephen Carlson replied --
                        >
                        >I think it all depends on what you mean by "defined." I am applauding
                        >them for reconstructing Q *and* documenting their decisions every step
                        >of the way. This transparency allows the interested critic to evaluate
                        >their work with[out] having to guess or "infer" what their reasoning
                        is.
                        >
                        Stephen,
                        I wonder whether it does allow the interested critic to do this
                        unless the IQP have defined the hypothesis they are using? It seems to
                        me that without a definition, the interested critic would not know what
                        hypothesis to evaluate, or what the work is supposed to be about,
                        however thorough the documentation on decisions on which words are
                        supposed to be included in hypothetical "Q", and which are to be
                        excluded.

                        The writing of the IQP can hardly be "transparent" unless at every step
                        of the way it clearly relates their decisions of what words to include
                        in "Q" to their documentary hypothesis of "Q". That can hardly have
                        happened if they do not know what documentary hypothesis they are trying
                        to apply to the synoptic gospels to produce their reconstruction of "Q".

                        Does anyone please know whether the IQP have defined the "Q hypothesis"
                        or "Q", and if so what their definition is? What have they actually been
                        trying to do?

                        Best wishes,
                        BRIAN WILSON

                        E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                        Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                        > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                        > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                        _
                      • Stephen C. Carlson
                        ... I am afraid, to answer your question, you are going to have to read the IQP yourself and see if you are satisfied. Without a definition of what you mean
                        Message 11 of 24 , Oct 2, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 09:08 AM 10/2/00 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                          >Stephen Carlson replied --
                          >>I think it all depends on what you mean by "defined." I am applauding
                          >>them for reconstructing Q *and* documenting their decisions every step
                          >>of the way. This transparency allows the interested critic to evaluate
                          >>their work with[out] having to guess or "infer" what their reasoning
                          >is.
                          >>
                          > I wonder whether it does allow the interested critic to do this
                          >unless the IQP have defined the hypothesis they are using? It seems to
                          >me that without a definition, the interested critic would not know what
                          >hypothesis to evaluate, or what the work is supposed to be about,
                          >however thorough the documentation on decisions on which words are
                          >supposed to be included in hypothetical "Q", and which are to be
                          >excluded.

                          I am afraid, to answer your question, you are going to have to read
                          the IQP yourself and see if you are satisfied. Without a definition
                          of what you mean by "definition" (despite repeated calls for
                          clarification), I am unable to provide you any guidance whatsoever
                          on whether the IQP will suit your purposes.

                          The IQP does suit my purposes, because on every point of their
                          reconstruction (even down to the most mind-numbing of details),
                          they document the opinions pro and con and their own evaluations.

                          Stephen Carlson
                          --
                          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                        • Brian E. Wilson
                          Can anyone please give references for any source of information on the aims of the International Q Project? I would like to know what task they have set
                          Message 12 of 24 , Oct 2, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Can anyone please give references for any source of information on the
                            aims of the International Q Project? I would like to know what task
                            they have set themselves to accomplish. Where, please, can I start
                            reading on this?

                            Best wishes,
                            BRIAN WILSON

                            E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                            Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                            > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                            > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                            _
                          • Mark Goodacre
                            ... For a couple of sketches on the web, see the Bamberg site (Paul Hoffmann et al) and the Claremont site (James Robinson et al). These and other Q web
                            Message 13 of 24 , Oct 3, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Brian Wilson asked:

                              > Can anyone please give references for any source of information
                              > on the aims of the International Q Project? I would like to know
                              > what task they have set themselves to accomplish. Where, please,
                              > can I start reading on this?

                              For a couple of sketches on the web, see the Bamberg site
                              (Paul Hoffmann et al) and the Claremont site (James Robinson
                              et al). These and other Q web materials listed on the NT
                              Gateway at http://ntgateway.com/synoptic/Q.htm. But the
                              best way to get a handle on their work is to spend time in
                              _Documenta Q_, the massive database and evaluation
                              currently underway. It's published by Peeters and several
                              volumes have been produced so far. Also forthcoming is _The
                              Critical Edition of Q_, listed at Amazon etc. as due out round
                              about now.

                              Mark

                              --------------------------------------
                              Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                              Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                              University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                              Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                              Homepage
                              http://www.ntgateway.com
                              The New Testament Gateway
                            • Karel Hanhart
                              ... Unfortunately I lost your reply ( while trying to move it to my Synoptic-L folder of my computer) to my reaction re. Semitic style and genre of Mark which
                              Message 14 of 24 , Oct 18, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:

                                > Brian,

                                Unfortunately I lost your reply ( while trying to move it to my Synoptic-L
                                folder of my computer) to my reaction re. Semitic style and genre of Mark
                                which I wrote on Oct. 15 (o7.35.42+02.00). I would like to answer your
                                remarks. The same is true for the contribution of Maluflen on that subject.
                                Is it possible that both of you or one of you send your reply again? I am
                                still somewhat of a beginner on the Internet. cordially your Karel


                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.