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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A Widely-Accepted Standard?

Expand Messages
  • Zeba Crook
    ... Why is it that you ignored the two sources I named (Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Xity, Chapt 1, and Kloppenborg Verbin, Ex. Q, Chap 1)? Is it
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
      Maluflen@... wrote:

      > I think it is true to say that Mt/Lk independence is indeed "assumed" in most
      > literature on Q. I am aware that the implausibility of what Luke is required
      > to have done with Matthew on the assumption that he depended on Mt has also been
      > "argued" by proponents of Q. Nevertheless this argument, which is quite
      > essential as justification of the existence of Q, is almost entirely absent
      > from some major works on Q. I suspect that the reticence to exhibit this
      > argument in much of the literature betrays an awareness of its intrinsic
      > weakness. I spent a whole morning recently reading through one of the major,
      > monograph-size studies on Q by John Kloppenborg. My specific reason for
      > engaging in this exercise was to see if I could find anything resembling a
      > good argument against Luke's use of Matthew, that would justify positing the
      > existence of Q. I didn't find even a trace of such an argument, which made me
      > feel that I had but wasted precious time. I see very little value in learning
      > a whole lot about the nature, extent, history, and character of Q before I
      > have become persuaded of the need to posit its existence. And I would need a
      > lot more on that than I found in Kloppenborg's book. Prius est esse quam tale
      > esse.

      Why is it that you ignored the two sources I named (Tuckett, Q and the History of
      Early Xity, Chapt 1, and Kloppenborg Verbin, Ex. Q, Chap 1)? Is it because they
      both do exactly the opposite of what you claim?

      It is exactly as Mark presented: can you really expect every supporter of the 2DH
      to go through the evidence over and over when others have done so already and to
      their satisfaction? I for one accept (nay, even presuppose!) many hypotheses
      about the world we live, say having to do with the way light or sound travels, but
      I must admit, to my shame, that I have not done the work myself. It is simply
      ridiculous argumentation to search for books which presuppose the 2DH but do not
      do all the work themselves.

      Zeb

      ***

      Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand)
      University of St. Michael's College
      Faculty of Theology
      81 St. Mary Street
      Toronto, Ontario, Canada
      M5S 1J4

      (416) 964-8629
      http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~kquinn/
      (please note new web page address)



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 10/17/2001 1:19:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, zeba.crook@utoronto.ca writes:
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
        In a message dated 10/17/2001 1:19:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        zeba.crook@... writes:

        << Why is it that you ignored the two sources I named (Tuckett, Q and the
        History of Early Xity, Chapt 1, and Kloppenborg Verbin, Ex. Q, Chap 1)? Is
        it because they both do exactly the opposite of what you claim?>>

        No. It's because I haven't recently looked at those works. I am delighted to
        be reminded, however, of where to find Kloppenborg's treatment of this issue,
        because it is really the only issue on Q that interests me at the moment.
        Actually, I think the work you refer to as Ex. Q was the one Chris Matthews
        recently mentioned to me in passing as making the argument for the
        implausibly of Luke having known and used Matthew. And I evidently picked up
        the wrong book (perhaps "Formation..") which I found disappointingly sparse -
        not to say totally deficient - in arguing the point.

        <<It is exactly as Mark presented: can you really expect every supporter of
        the 2DH to go through the evidence over and over when others have done so
        already and to their satisfaction?>>

        Hmm.. There really is no such thing as "evidence," is there, for the position
        that Luke did not know Matthew (I could stop here, but will continue) that is
        not totally dependent on theories about how a later author would likely have
        used an earlier source. It is these theories that I find both eminently
        challengeable and quite disturbingly subjective.

        In contrast, I would argue that there is much evidence -- which is complex,
        cumulative, but absolutely compelling -- of Luke's dependence on Matthew.
        Some of this evidence is laid out, e.g., in Goulder's two-volume work: Luke,
        a New Paradigm, and his argument is weaker than it could be, in my view,
        because of his assumption that Luke was using Mark as well as Matthew, since
        this results in a Luke who inexplicably uses two different documents in
        almost irreconcilably different ways. In this regard, the 2 GH has an
        advantage over the FH as an effective dispenser with Q.

        << It is simply ridiculous argumentation to search for books which
        presuppose the 2DH but do not do all the work themselves.>>

        So now you know that I am absolved of this accusation, as I was searching for
        exactly the opposite. Thanks for giving me a heads up on chapter 1 of
        Excavating Q. By the way, the other book I came across when combing our
        library for arguments in favor of the existence of Q was the so-called
        "Critical Text of..", which I found equally unenlightening in proposito, even
        in its introductory chapters.

        Leonard Maluf

        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.