Re: [Synoptic-L] The coherence of Q (was: "the originallanguage of Q")
- "Stephen C. Carlson" wrote:
> However, the Temptation's inclusion in Q is shaky. KloppenborgI think it should be noted that not everyone who deals closely with Q buys
> (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?
into K-V's argument about the incoherence of the form, style, and theology of
the "temptation" story with that of the rest of Q or any of its reputed
layers. Tuckett, for example, in his seminal article on the Temptation
Narrative in the Neryrink FS, argues to the contrary and shows just how many
of the characteristic theological themes and concerns of Q the Temptation
account shares. I have argued that, because of certain (and to my view
misguided) assumptions about the meaning that the title Son of God has in Q
4:1-13 and what Jesus is presumably being asked by the Devil to do
particularly in Q 4:3, K-V's thesis about the theology of the Temptation
narrative, particularly with respect to its alleged view of Jesus as a
thaumaturge and its view of miracle, misrepresents what that view actually
is (see my "A Turn on `Turning Stones to Bread': A New Understanding of the
Devil's Intention in Q 4.3", Biblical Research 41  pp. 37-57] and
therefore sees an incoherence between the Temptation narrative and the rest
of Q that is not really there.
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...