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

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

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 10/17/2001 1:19:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, zeba.crook@utoronto.ca writes:
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 17, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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.