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

[Excavating-Q] Dr. P. Hofrichter

Expand Messages
  • John Kloppenborg
    Univ.-Prof. DDr. Peter Hofrichter says: I am not a Q-specialist. But for a introduction lecture I tried once to present a reconstruction of Q on the basis of
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 4, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Univ.-Prof. DDr. Peter Hofrichter says:
      "I am not a Q-specialist. But for a introduction lecture I tried once to
      present a reconstruction of Q on the basis of Lk because I thought in the
      same way as you: Lk preserves the order of Mk very exactly. Therefore I
      thought he would have preseved also truely the order of Q. The result was a
      striking logical structure of Q. I have to add that I do not think that the
      Baptist texts and the far-healing (?) of Capharnaum were were part of Q."

      Your findings agree generally with mine and others, namely that the
      isolation of Q from MAtthew and Luke yields not simply diverse and
      heterogenous sayings, but a set of materials that displays various
      coherences and a logical structure. I've argued in an article to appear in
      JBL 120/1 that it also has features that neither Matthew nor Luke picked up
      or made much of.--analogous to Matthew's and Luke's failure to develop or
      enhance the Markan secrecy motif.

      Your skepticism about the Baptist texts and the Fernheilung in Q 7 agrees,
      of course, with such distinguished scholars as C.H. Weisse (1856), whose "Q"
      lacked Luke 3:7--7:35, and Holtzmann (1863), whose "Q" began with 7:18.
      L├╝hrmann doubted that 4:1-13 belonged to Q, and other doubts have been
      expressed by various scholars.
      Since Prof. Hofrichter does not indicate why he thinks that 3:7-9, 16-17 and
      7:1-10 did not belong to Q, I cannot comment directly on that proposal. I
      would say, however, that in the past a (to my mind) false presumption of
      generic purity led such scholars as Weisse to exclude 3:7-9, 16-17 and
      7:1-10 from Q because they were either not logia, or not logia of Jesus. I
      think this is a wrong-headed approach because it decides in advance what can
      and cannot be part of Q based on a stipulative definition of Q's genre. I do
      not agree with stipulative approaches, either to genre or to reconstruction.
      In terms of the degree of Matt-Luke agreements, Q 3:7-9, 16-17 must be
      considered as serious candidates for membership in Q; and the fact that
      7:1-10 is a miracle story is not in itself a reason to doubt it being in Q;
      Q also has 11:14 (with gospel's shortest miracle story!), and elsewhere
      presupposes Jesus' thaumaturgical activities (7:22; 10:9, 13-15; 11:14-20;
      17:6, etc.). Moreover, the rhetoric of Q 7:1-10 coheres with other Q sayings
      (10:13-15; 11:31-32), and the prediction of the Coming one by John in 3:16
      is picked up by 7:18-23 and 13:34-35.

      On the other hand, Prof. Hofrichter is, I think, quite right that a case has
      to be made for any pericope belonging to Q. This is the reason that the new
      Critical Edition of Q has a zero-variant for all Q pericopae--i.e., the
      basic issue of whether the MAtt-Luke agreements represent a Q text or some
      other tradition that Matt and Luke have come by independently of Q. The most
      obvious dubious cases are Q 13:30; 14:5; 14:11; 14:16-24; 17:33; 19:12-27,
      but in principle all pericope must be examined.

      best
      jskv





      This is the _Excavating Q_ Seminar (Oct. 23 -- Nov. 10 2000).
      Please send your messages to Synoptic-S@...
      Please send all other correspondence to Synoptic-S-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.