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

Re: [Synoptic-L] The coherence of Q (was: "the original language of Q")

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... [...] ... Putting the aside the issue of whether a stratified Q is incoherent, the fact that we can stratify an extant document like John shows that mere
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 18, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      At 09:07 PM 2/16/01 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
      > The 2ST posits a formal document, Q. Q as a whole turns out to be
      >incoherent. Most extant formal documents are coherent. By what stretch
      >of the imagination is this not a difficulty for the 2ST? When someone
      >proposes a theory, it is by testing the consequences of that theory that
      >people can asses its validity.
      [...]
      > I myself have argued that there were three editions of John. So what?
      >John is not a hypothetical document. A better analogy would be the
      >supposed Johannine Signs Source. I don't know whether anyone proposes
      >different editions of this. If they do, then I would be at least as
      >critical of their proposals.

      Putting the aside the issue of whether a stratified Q is "incoherent,"
      the fact that we can stratify an extant document like John shows that
      mere ability to be stratified is not a conclusive objection to the
      document's existence. Otherwise, John would not exist.

      In the case of Q, it would be helpful to investigate whether its
      stratification implicitly undercuts the reason for hypothesizing
      its existence in the first place. The Temptation may be a good
      example. It is commonly assigned to Q because of the striking
      literary agreements between Matthew and Luke that cannot be
      explained by their independent use of Mark's Temptation. Q
      theorists do not admit that Luke is dependent on Matthew (or
      vice versa), because that would undercut their main argument
      for Q: Matthew and Luke's relative independence. Therefore,
      the Temptation has to belong to Q to uphold the Two Document
      Theory.

      However, the Temptation's inclusion in Q is shaky. Kloppenborg
      (Formation, 248) says that it "does not share the form, style
      or theological orientation of either the two mahor redactional
      strata outlined in the preceding chapters. Nor is there an
      indication that it existed in the early stages of Q. It has
      every appearance of a later interpolation."

      If it is so apparent that the Temptation does not belong to Q,
      then why it is assigned to Q in the first place at the source
      critical stage?

      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

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... Thankyou for making a point I was attempting to make, but more coherently (sic)! ... I have toyed with this question myself on the odd occasion. Perhaps
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 18, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On 18 Feb 2001, at 17:36, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

        > Putting the aside the issue of whether a stratified Q is "incoherent,"
        > the fact that we can stratify an extant document like John shows that
        > mere ability to be stratified is not a conclusive objection to the
        > document's existence. Otherwise, John would not exist.

        Thankyou for making a point I was attempting to make, but more
        coherently (sic)!

        > In the case of Q, it would be helpful to investigate whether its
        > stratification implicitly undercuts the reason for hypothesizing
        > its existence in the first place. The Temptation may be a good
        > example.

        I have toyed with this question myself on the odd occasion.
        Perhaps this will prove a profitable line of enquiry, but I'm not sure.
        How would we know if we found a real anomaly? Jeffrey's email
        demonstrates that what for one scholar is an anomaly
        (Kloppenborg) is for another scholar integral (Tuckett, Gibson).
        Indeed one might add on the Temptation that Alan Kirk too sees it
        as integral to Q on genre-critical grounds, attempting to take further
        Kloppenborg's work on genre by stressing the ancient literary
        analogies within a more synchronic approach.

        Similarly, I used to think that the presence of Nazara in Q 4.16
        might prove problematic to the coherence of a Sayings Gospel, but
        in recent work Robinson has rather stressed the importance of
        Nazara along with other narrative elements early in Q.

        But even if we could agree on incongruities, lots of ancient texts
        have anomalies, incoherences, seams and so on, as we were
        discussing. For me, therefore, the more promising avenue is to
        ask whether Q as it is reconstructed by the experts shows signs of
        seams, structures and shaping that make better sense on source-
        critical grounds (viz. as Luke's extrapolation from non-Marcan
        Matthew) than on genre- and literary-critical grounds (viz. as
        pointing to a discreet document).

        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://NTGateway.com
        The New Testament Gateway

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... OK, you ve eludicated why I ve never been able to get a coherent objection to Q out of this line of reasoning -- as tempting as it seems at first glance.
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 18, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          At 12:42 AM 2/19/01 -0000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
          >On 18 Feb 2001, at 17:36, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
          >> In the case of Q, it would be helpful to investigate whether its
          >> stratification implicitly undercuts the reason for hypothesizing
          >> its existence in the first place. The Temptation may be a good
          >> example.
          >
          >I have toyed with this question myself on the odd occasion.
          >Perhaps this will prove a profitable line of enquiry, but I'm not sure.
          >How would we know if we found a real anomaly?

          OK, you've eludicated why I've never been able to get a
          coherent objection to Q out of this line of reasoning --
          as "tempting" as it seems at first glance.

          >But even if we could agree on incongruities, lots of ancient texts
          >have anomalies, incoherences, seams and so on, as we were
          >discussing. For me, therefore, the more promising avenue is to
          >ask whether Q as it is reconstructed by the experts shows signs of
          >seams, structures and shaping that make better sense on source-
          >critical grounds (viz. as Luke's extrapolation from non-Marcan
          >Matthew) than on genre- and literary-critical grounds (viz. as
          >pointing to a discreet document).

          You mean, if one could show that Q as it is reconstructed has
          a narrative exordium that looks very similar to Matthew's
          version of Mark ch. 1 -- a narrative exordium that disappears
          in Q precisely where the Farrerite would state that Luke has
          departed from Matthew? You know, I heard an SBL paper on that
          topic once before... ;-)

          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

          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.