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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Dr. Trafford's argument for Q

Expand Messages
  • Eric Eve
    ... without ... I have some sympathy with the sentiments expressed here (although I m happier with the priority of Mark than Thomas Longstaff appears to be).
    Message 1 of 3 , May 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Thomas Longstaff wrote:

      > Given this line of reasoning, though, I wonder how one can accept the
      > existence of Q without adequately addressing the objections to that
      > hypothesis - and there are many. It seems to me that the problems (and
      > therefore the objections to which one should respond) do not diminish but
      > in fact become greater when one wishes to accept the existence of Q
      without
      > saying very clearly what it was.

      I have some sympathy with the sentiments expressed here (although I'm
      happier with the priority of Mark than Thomas Longstaff appears to be). Some
      people may have followed the debate on Crosstalk (largely between Bill Arnal
      and myself) last summer on the possibility of reconstructing Q given that
      attempting to reconstruct Mark from Matthew and Luke by the same means would
      result in a rather poor approximation to Mark as we know it. As it so
      happened, an article along very similar lines appeared a month or so later
      in the Expository Times ('The End of the Theology of Q?' by C.S. Rodd). The
      June 2002 edition of the Expository Times contains responses to Rodd from
      Christopher Tuckett and Paul Foster; among several other arguments they both
      identify a tension between Rodd's acceptance of the two document hypothesis
      and his robust scepticism about the possibility of knowing what Q contained,
      the point being (as Kloppenborg also argues in Excavating Q) that acceptance
      of the two source hypothesis more or less logically entails the
      reconstruction of Q in a certain manner (one reconstructs Q from mainly from
      the double tradition since the point of postulating Q was to account for the
      double tradition). Although I'm not one hundred per cent convinced that this
      objection is logically watertight at an abstract, theoretical level, it does
      seem to me to have a considerable force in practice. But that indicates that
      scepticism about the possibility of reconstructing Q implies (or should be
      taken to imply) some measure of scepticism about Q's existence.

      Eric Eve
      Harris Manchester College, Oxford




      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.