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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Assumptions about the 2DH (was The Q order of Mt 10:24-39)

Expand Messages
  • Brian Trafford
    ... Ron replied: I don t understand the relevance of framing here, or why it s an exception to your disclaimer. Anyway I must disagree about 2DH
    Message 1 of 1 , May 23 12:08 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In synoptic-l@y..., "Ron Price" <ron.price@v...> wrote:
      > Zeba Crook wrote:
      > >  At any rate, I don't
      > >believe the 2DH has much to say, nor needs to say much, about the
      > >compositional strategies of AuQ, beyond the issue of framing;
      Ron replied:
      >   I don't understand the relevance of framing here, or why it's an
      > exception to your disclaimer.
      >   Anyway I must disagree about 2DH obligations. The 2DH predicts that
      > the double tradition (or something very close to it) once existed as a
      > stand-alone source. As with the predictions of any other hypothesis,
      > this prediction should be tested. One of the tests should be whether
      > this text is viable as a stand-alone document. A part of this test
      > should be whether we can envisage an intelligent person creating this
      > document. If the document contains "debris", this should set the alarm
      > bells ringing. Perhaps the document didn't exist, at least in the form
      > indicated by the 2DH.
      I do not see why a belief in the 2DH requires one to accept that the hypothetical Q was entirely a written text, nor that it was a coherent whole.  All that needs to be accepted to advance the 2DH is that certain sayings and actions of Jesus were preserved independently of GMark, and later were recorded by Matt and Luke.  It also accepts that Matt and Luke wrote independently of one another.
      How coherent was Q?  How much of it was preserved in Matt and Luke?  Did some of Q appear in Mark?  In John?  Was it written in Hebrew/Aramaic, or Greek, or some combination of the two languages?  Was any of it preserved at least partially in oral traditions prior to Matt and Luke writing them down?  Who can say?  Brian Wilson, for one, believed that virtually everything contained in *all three* of the Synoptics was contained in a pre-existing written source.  I found this argument unpersuasive for the same reasons I find arguments that Luke knew Matt (or vice versa) unpersuasive. 
      Quite frankly, I do not see why a proponent of the 2DH bears any kind of a burden of proof as to the exact nature and composition of Q. Obviously many have tried (see Burton Mack, Marcus Borg, and J.S. Kloppenborg, among others), but their efforts need not represent the beliefs of all, or even a majority of 2DH proponents.  I see it as the simplest explaination for the double traditions found exclusively in Matt and Luke (and hinted at in parts of Paul and James), and remain firmly agnostic as to the exact composition, structure and format of the Q materials.  If anything, the continued speculations from Q proponents have left me more than a little uneasy with the whole Q business, but I continue to accept it as the best explaination and solution for the Synoptic Problem that we have available to us today.

      Brian Trafford
      Calgary, AB, Canada
      Every morning the exegetes should repeat, "Q is a hypothetical document whose exact extension, wording, orginating community, strata, and stages of composition cannot be known."
      J. P. Meier _A Marginal Jew_ Vol. 2, pg. 178

      Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
      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.