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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A self-contradiction re Q and Matthew?

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Stephen, Thanks. Unfortunately my local university library doesn t have a copy of this so I can t comment on Parker s list. I do note, however, that none
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 3, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I wrote:

      >> Has anyone tried to isolate Q vocabulary/style which is not used by
      >>Matthew? On the surface this would seem impossible as Q is almost by
      >>definition a subset of Matthew. But if for Q features we count features
      >>which Matthew doesn't use *outside Q*, then it should be logically
      >>possible. I have done this for sQ with a similar proviso and found
      >>several features used in 3 or more sayings, which tends to support sQ's
      >>distinctiveness: aphorisms of the 2 ways; man/woman pairs; SWMA
      >>(general); few (re followers of Jesus); LUCNOS; APOLLUMI as RSV "lose".

      Stephen Carlson replied:

      >Pierson Parker, THE GOSPEL BEFORE MARK (1953), has a list of
      >"Expressions Characteristic of the Q Document" on page 244.
      >None of them, however, include the ones you list.

      Stephen,

      Thanks.
      Unfortunately my local university library doesn't have a copy of this
      so I can't comment on Parker's list. I do note, however, that none of my
      recently published books on Q from a 2SH perspective (Tuckett (1996),
      Allison (1997) Kloppenborg (2000)) refers to Parker (1953). Perhaps
      current Q specialists realize they're onto a loser trying to isolate Q's
      distinctiveness from Matthew. ;-)

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Parker is a maverick by being the one of the only people who believe in Q but not (pure) Markan priority. Parker s list of characteristic expressions in Q
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 3, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        At 06:05 PM 10/3/02 +0100, Ron Price wrote:
        > Unfortunately my local university library doesn't have a copy of this
        >so I can't comment on Parker's list. I do note, however, that none of my
        >recently published books on Q from a 2SH perspective (Tuckett (1996),
        >Allison (1997) Kloppenborg (2000)) refers to Parker (1953). Perhaps
        >current Q specialists realize they're onto a loser trying to isolate Q's
        >distinctiveness from Matthew. ;-)

        Parker is a maverick by being the one of the only people who
        believe in Q but not (pure) Markan priority.

        Parker's list of characteristic expressions in Q includes:
        AGAQOS, ACIOS, APOKALUPTW, ARA, BEELEBOUL, GENEA, DENDRON,
        DOKOS, DOULOS, EKBALLW EN, ECERXOMAI + purpose clause,
        ERW fut. indic., ESQIW ... PINW, ESOMAI, hETEROS, hCW fut.,
        QERIZW, QHSAUROS, IDOU, KARPON POIEIN, KARFOS, MAKARIOS,
        MERIMNAW, hO in attrac. constr. followed by noun, OUAI,
        OURANOS KAI GH, PETEINON, PLEION, PLHN, PONHROS adj., SWMA,
        and hUPO + acc.

        Later in life, he replaced Q with a Proto-Luke.

        J.C.Hawkins admitted his not finding any distinctive expressions
        in Q.

        Stephen
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Ron Price
        ... Stephen, It may be that material assigned to Q has a bigger proportion of the above expressions than Matthew, but I don t think that s very significant. By
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 4, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Stephen Carlson wrote:

          >Parker's list of characteristic expressions in Q includes:
          >AGAQOS, ACIOS, APOKALUPTW, ARA, BEELEBOUL, GENEA, DENDRON,
          >DOKOS, DOULOS, EKBALLW EN, ECERXOMAI + purpose clause,
          >ERW fut. indic., ESQIW ... PINW, ESOMAI, hETEROS, hCW fut.,
          >QERIZW, QHSAUROS, IDOU, KARPON POIEIN, KARFOS, MAKARIOS,
          >MERIMNAW, hO in attrac. constr. followed by noun, OUAI,
          >OURANOS KAI GH, PETEINON, PLEION, PLHN, PONHROS adj., SWMA,
          >and hUPO + acc.

          Stephen,

          It may be that material assigned to Q has a bigger proportion of the
          above expressions than Matthew, but I don't think that's very
          significant. By chance we would expect many such expressions. I think
          the 2SH might reasonably be expected to predict the presence of
          expressions in Q which are not elsewhere in Matthew.

          >J.C.Hawkins admitted his not finding any distinctive expressions
          >in Q.

          I rest my case. Q (unlike sQ) is not distinctive, therefore Q (unlike
          sQ) is not credible.

          Ron Price

          Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

          e-mail: ron.price@...

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

          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.