Re: [Synoptic-L] A Widely-Accepted Standard?
- In a message dated 10/17/2001 1:19:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<< 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.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...