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

Re: Arguments For Q

Expand Messages
  • E. Bruce Brooks
    Topic: Arguments for Q From: Bruce In Response To: [Stevan] Davies I think that the message to which Stevan is here replying was posted on Synoptic-L, but I m
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 7 9:39 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Topic: Arguments for Q
      From: Bruce
      In Response To: [Stevan] Davies

      I think that the message to which Stevan is here replying was posted on
      Synoptic-L, but I'm the last person to quibble about jurisdictions. I will
      cross-post to Syn-L for protocol's sake. The responses make no pretense of
      preserving the consecutivity of Stevan's remarks.

      STEVAN (a propos my objection, in a previous exchange, to "being cute,"
      etc): I would comment on this unwarranted attack on the pleasing rhetoric
      of cuteness but, in his own cuteness below, he belies himself.

      BRUCE: I submit that there is an analytically consequential difference
      between kidding Yuri in the prolegomena (the "cuteness" to which Stevan
      here refers), and burlesquing positions in the body, of a discussion. Yuri
      doesn't get very much in return for all he puts into these conversations. I
      think he is entitled to a chuckle once in a while. If he himself is
      offended, he is perfectly capable of saying so. Pending that, I plead
      innocent of beliement.

      STEVAN (on the futility of trying to engage the fluid Q in argument): I
      sense that the great majority of SBL members who do believe in Q do so
      because "everybody else" does. A strong well publicized case against Q,
      which one hopes is forthcoming from Mark G., might well sway opinion more
      than you think. Probably attract adherents in inverse proportion to their
      age.

      BRUCE: On the outcome, I wouldn't dare predict, but on the demographics of
      accessibility to argument, I suspect Stevan is pretty close. I would guess:
      both those just beginning their careers, and leery of launching them upon a
      sea of uncertain presumption, and those just ending them, whose own
      contributions are historically secure and whose resources of personal
      magnanimity are thus available to the situation. It's in between - those
      with something more to gain from their previous investment in the theory -
      that you get problems of opposition to a refutation of the theory. I'm sure
      MarkG is the last person to underrate those problems. My own tactical sense
      is that, whereas the Synoptic Problem is ready to be had, Q will still be
      standing when it collapses. It is no longer inextricably implicated in the
      Synoptic Problem as such. It has developed other reasons for being. It can
      at most be made functionally obsolete in the eyes of a couple dozen
      ivy-covered scholars. In short, of my crowd.

      STEVAN (on the numbers of people involved in the QH vs the FH): In my
      investigations of the Maya I was surprised to find so few people involved.
      Perhaps 20 of prominence and 100 more. Far as I know there are fewer
      serious Mayanists than there were people at the SBL session I addressed
      last fall. There are probably more books on Paul's Epistle to the
      Philippians than on Tikal, Copan, Uxmal, put together. There are literally
      thousands of professors who take a position on the Q question even though
      most probably have done little more than read up on the question for a grad
      school class. How many specialists
      are there in America on the Tao Te Ching's textual history? How many
      critically analyze the early Confucian texts?

      BRUCE: Way up in the hundreds, at least to hear them tell it.
      Internationally, tens of thousands (though to be sure China is a rather
      populous country, compared to Guatemala). But I don't disagree that (1)
      matters of scale are consequential in these situations, and (2) the many
      are typically led by the few. This general tendency is further exaggerated,
      in the case of Q, by the sociological structure of academic disciplines.
      Boring but true.

      STEVAN (on the claimed latitude of Q proponents in distancing themselves
      from the arguments on which Q was originally founded): I'm pretty sure this
      is a pseudo-problem. Sounds like a version of the genetic fallacy.

      BRUCE: Not all genetics are fallacious, just as not all circles are
      vicious, and not all distinctions are invidious. I seem to notice that a
      recent challenge to Streeter's argument for Markan priority has led,
      certainly on these lists, to a re-examination of Streeter's argument for
      Markan priority. Why not Q? But I will amend my request for information. I
      would like to have someone tell me: (1) What is the classic argument for Q,
      who made it, and when? (2) If the present argument for Q has shifted from
      that position, what is the current position, who articulated it, and when?

      STEVAN (on the seemingly widespread wish, in the NT field, for something
      between GMk and the HJ): Yes. For one thing we have the letters of Paul and
      early letters of his associates (e.g. Colossians) in that space. For
      another thing we have, in that space, the assumption that Jesus' disciples
      were not themselves going about lamenting their culpable ignorance but that
      Mark constructs them as culpably ignorant. Thus one surely is permitted to
      wonder what there was, promulgated by disciples, before Mark and thus open
      the possibility of some hypothetical (Q) or archaeological (Thomas) text
      conveying pre-Markan information
      that could well be more reliable than that transmitted by Mark.

      BRUCE: I agree as to GMk. I have suggested previously that it is probably a
      major incorrect assumption of the HJ enterprise that it expects to find the
      HJ at the end of the solved Synoptic Problem. GMk, to me the intuitively
      attractive candidate for earliest Gospel, certainly betrays many traces of
      reshaping, rather than passive reporting, of its material. Even if you can
      bring the boat in, the dock doesn't reach all the way to the shore. It's
      better than being at sea. It's worth doing. Just not under the HJ rubric,
      which promises too much.

      STEVAN (on the early evolution of the cosmological status of Jesus): This
      "trajectory" toward greater cosmological assertions about Jesus is often
      assumed but easily refuted. Such assertions are found in Paul's letters
      (e.g. 2 Cor 4 3-6) ca. 57 and the non-Paul but
      generally-dated-60's letter Colossians (1:15-17). It is a trajectory that
      seems to be one that logically should be there... but it isn't.

      BRUCE: That's twice Colossians has been mentioned. The tendency with
      suspect Epistles, as far as I can tell, is to put them aside and
      concentrate instead on the genuine ones. I think Colossians/Ephesians are
      due for serious discussion precisely as representing a deutero- and
      possibly trito-Pauline position that is very much part of the late 1c
      picture. But not here, not now. If it has already been capably done, I
      would appreciate a reference.

      STEVAN (on my announced intention not to comment further on Q): Are you
      sure this is an intellectually respectable position? That you will
      determinedly ignore what is, for the great majority of scholars who have
      carefully investigated the matter, and the great majority of
      scholars who take those investigations to have settled the issue, the
      single most explanatory and convincing hypothesis in existence....

      BRUCE: Sure, why not? Q doesn't explain anything for me. I note in passing
      that suddenly the many sheep of SBL (see above), as adherents of Q, have
      become in the present paragraph virtually the whole of past scholarship, to
      whom the homage of attention, and protracted analysis, and open-ended
      discussion with uncertainly accredited emissaries, is due from all
      right-thinking persons. Even if so, I'm not impressed. I don't care that
      much for the society of right-thinking persons. I still opt out. For one
      thing, it saves time. For another: Suppose, as Stevan suggests (not here
      repeated), on Day 1 MarkG's book comes out, on Day 2 Kloppenborg and
      Company, or whoever speaks for Q, throw in the towel; what happens on Day
      3? We need somebody to have been preparing the ground for the World After Q
      by having conceptually colonized the World Without Q, so that the entire NT
      community won't awake on Day 3 not knowing what the landscape is like, and
      going into permanent irreversible shock. Anybody who has been doing their
      bit to acclimate people, if only subliminally, to that future situation, by
      steadily declining to calculate in terms of Q, and thus in a small way
      accustoming others to think without Q, can at that future date claim to
      have been working in the common interest. Isn't that acceptable?

      Yet again, and here I admit is a merely selfish consideration: I suspect,
      as I have said before on this list, that the demise of Q in its present
      form won't leave a blank. I suspect that it will leave a hole, for which
      Synoptic evidence will tend to indicate a filler. That post-Q (I still like
      R for it) will not have the same contents or character as Q, since for one
      thing it will not be doing the job of accounting for common material in
      Mt/Lk (Luke's use of Matthew seems a much more natural presumption), but
      *it will be doing something.* By the mental discipline of ignoring Q, and
      letting any, so to speak, Q-ward indications in the Synoptic data reappear
      unhampered, I expect to get a leg up on the R Hypothesis (RH). Having by a
      few years and a little bad luck missed out on being first with FH, soon
      perhaps heading for triumph, I don't intend to blow this second
      opportunity. Call it intellectual ambition, and also, I could use the
      money. I still owe Brill for the last three.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts
    • Stevan Davies
      Well now, I thought I d send y all a copy of the letter Bruce has already responded to, some of which concerns itself with the presumption that Bruce isn t
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 8 6:58 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Well now, I thought I'd send y'all a copy of the letter Bruce
        has already responded to, some of which concerns itself
        with the presumption that Bruce isn't going to respond to it.

        Steve

        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
        It's a rainy Labor Day holiday here in Pennsylvania. So I think
        I'll reply to Bruce even though he says he plans not to respond.
        The (potential) Baseball Game of the Century isn't due to start
        for awhile.

        > Prologue: First, I waive comment on some procedural aspects of this
        > discussion, such as the occasional "being cute," or the game of seeing who
        > is left holding the phrase "scissors and paste," or the epithet "old" as a
        > dismissal of an argument, as though valid points were not liable to be
        > urged repeatedly over the years - except to say that cuteness and
        > caricature and evasion are properly excluded from serious discussion
        > precisely because they distract and distort and derail serious discussion.

        I would comment on this unwarrented attack on the pleasing rhetoric
        of cuteness but, in his own cuteness below, he belies himself.

        > Second, to save Yuri the trouble of reiteration, I will here concede the
        > point he has earlier urged: Q is absolutely here to stay. Forever. There is
        > California money behind it, manifestly it holds the interest of a
        > significant nonscholarly readership, there will before long be a theme park
        > in Florida for it. All that is given. If I had money to invest
        > (unfortunately, Brill has it all), Q is where it would go. Q and Microsoft.

        And a fine cuteness it is.

        > Any argument about Q is moot from the first: it will only affect a tiny
        > handful of ivy-covered scholars. But that argument would still be
        > theoretically interesting to have, in a sort of nostalgic, abstract way,
        > and my remarks here are by way of seeing whether, given that the argument
        > cannot be efficacious, it might at least be cogent in its own terms.

        I can tell by sensing the vibrations in the air with my antennae that
        there are two considerations that speak against this dour thesis.

        1. I sense that the great majority of SBL members who do believe in Q
        do so because "everybody else" does. A strong well publicized case
        against Q, which one hopes is forthcoming from Mark G., might well
        sway opinion more than you think. Probably attract adherents in
        inverse proportion to their age.

        2. I sense that Burton Mack is thought to have gone way too far with
        Q so that there is some wondering "if this is what Q leads to, maybe
        we need to think about this again." Along with this I sense a general
        disturbance with the idea that Q can be analyzed a la Kloppenborg as
        a discreet text. And following along with these two sensings, I sense
        a frisson in the more conservative wing of the SBL that adherence to
        Q might well lead to the assertion a la Mack that a non-canonical
        source is a superior source for knowledge of the Lord.... that having
        knocked down and stomped on Thomas for its presumption, it might
        be time to do the same for Q.

        This may be the high water mark of Q acceptance, but I see no
        reason to think that the tide might not recede. In this scenario
        Mark plays the role of King Knute... but potentially, at least, he
        could have more success.

        > 1. The fact about this interchange that most impresses at least this naive
        > spectator is that the Q side of it does not stand still. Take the issue of
        > responsibility. Whereas MarkG seems to be, so to speak, a lineally
        > accredited spokesman for the FH, so that any concessions he makes may well
        > be damaging for the FH in our time, nothing any Q proponent may say in
        > response endangers or implicates Q................

        This appears to be a function of the numbers of people involved.

        In my investigations of the Maya I was surprised to find so few
        people involved. Perhaps 20 of prominence and 100 more. Far as I
        know there are fewer serious Mayanists than there were people at the
        SBL session I addressed last fall. There are probably more books on
        Paul's Epistle to the Philippians than on Tikal, Copan, Uxmal, put
        together.

        There are literally thousands of professors who take a position on
        the Q question even though most probably have done little more than
        read up on the question for a grad school class. How many specialists
        are there in America on the Tao Te Ching's textual history? How many
        critically analyze the early Confucian texts?

        The difficulty of changing opinon on Q is both a problem of argument
        and a sociological problem.

        > 2. There is a lateral version of this same fact. Bill distances himself at
        > one point from the views of certain other Q proponents, thus getting a more
        > comfortable position for himself in the discussion. ---------------

        > Q adherents not only do not implicate Q, they do not implicate
        > each other, or even themselves on some future occasion. Unless someone is
        > keeping track. And keeping track of anything so large and multiplex as the
        > Q enterprise is, to say the least, a daunting prospect. It would require a
        > subsidy from Microsoft.

        I think these observations are correct for Internet discussions just
        as they would be correct for face to face conversations. But when
        Mark G's book arrives and, let us assume, Bill and Klop review it
        very favorably for prominent journals conceding their inability to
        overcome his arguments.... then the immovable object would shift.
        But granted that no amount of internet discussion is going to shift
        it.

        > 3.Q
        > is abiding as a concept, but fluid as to details. Yet it is only at the
        > level of its details that a theory can profitably be subjected to scrutiny.
        > This makes for a frustrating, and, more importantly, for an indeterminate,
        > discussion.

        I can certainly understand that. But it is inherent in the nature of
        the beast, a hypothetical variously reconstructable text. Only if one
        says (as has been said on crosstalk) that a hypothetical variously
        reconstructable text cannot be considered as any form of evidence
        for anything at all can one do more than say that, while the
        discussion will be frustrating and indeterminate it should be carried
        on regardless. I'd wager that most discussions in the Humanities
        are frustrating and indeterminate, e.g. the matter of the Historical
        Jesus.

        > 4. modern Q proponents enjoy
        > extreme latitude in distancing themselves from the arguments on which Q was
        > originally founded. ----------------

        I'm pretty sure this is a pseudo-problem. Sounds like a version of
        the genetic fallacy.

        > 5. What stands out to me
        > in the record from Reimarus to the present is that, whatever the specifics,
        > the Synoptic discussion *as a whole* is not content to abide in the thought
        > that GMark best represents the earliest Christianity. No sooner is that
        > proposition forcefully urged than *something* - Q or some other
        > hypothetical text, some archaeologically recovered text, Markan
        > Nonpriority, all the above - is put into the space between Jesus and GMark.
        > This seems to me to be the one guiding meta-fact that underlies the entire
        > debate.

        Yes. For one thing we have the letters of Paul and early letters of
        his associates (e.g. Colossians) in that space. For another thing we
        have, in that space, the assumption that Jesus' disciples were not
        themselves going about lamenting their culpable ignorance but that
        Mark constructs them as culpably ignorant. Thus one surely is
        permitted to wonder what there was, promulgated by disciples, before
        Mark and thus open the possibility of some hypothetical (Q)
        or archaeological (Thomas) text conveying pre-Markan information
        that could well be more reliable than that transmitted by Mark.

        > suspect that some critical point of doctine is imperilled by
        > recognizing GMark as the most authentic statement of doctrine.

        You've lost me. I suppose you're correct.... but the only person
        I know of who ever recognized GMark to be this was AMark.

        > My guess
        > would be that the felt doctrinal lack in Mark is the one that both GMt and
        > GLk already conspicuously fill, that GJn goes on to take into metaphysical
        > realms, and that noncanonical texts such as GThos also make statements
        > about, namely: an account of the origin and, so to speak, cosmological
        > status, of Jesus

        This "trajectory" toward greater cosmological assertions about Jesus
        is often assumed but easily refuted. Such assertions are found in
        Paul's letters (e.g. 2 Cor 4 3-6) ca. 57 and the non-Paul but
        generally-dated-60's letter Colossians (1:15-17). It is a trajectory
        that seems to be one that logically should be there... but it isn't.

        Or, one might say, it is a trajectory of thought that arose and
        culminated prior to the writing of the canonical gospels.

        > I cannot help being impressed by the fact that in the early centuries of
        > the Church it had become heretical to doubt that Jesus had existed from the
        > beginning of the world.

        Perhaps so. Idea was asserted in the first decades (Col. 1:15).
        Idea is not in Mark but Mark IS in the Canon, so it was not heretical
        not to mention it. In fact I believe that the canonical status of
        Mark was considerably less subject to dispute than the canonical
        status of John.

        > Just thinking out loud. I have no intention of commenting further on Q, and
        > I stand reminded that I still owe several listmembers a response to their
        > postings on more discussable matters, namely the specific
        > interrelationships of the three GSyn.

        Are you sure this is an intellectually respectable position? That you
        will determinedly ignore what is, for the great majority of scholars
        who have carefully investigated the matter, and the great majority of
        scholars who take those investigations to have settled the issue, the
        single most explanatory and convincing hypothesis in existence....

        A. If one refuses on principle to discuss hypothetical Q.
        B. Admits synoptic intertexutality.
        C. Admits Markan priority.
        D. Accepts on Faith that Luke is later than Mark.
        E. Ignores Thomas
        Then one through principle and Faith has arrived at the the Farrer/
        Goodacre theory and can sit back satisfied and content but,
        outside of, perhaps, ruminating over C. above I don't know what
        there would be left to discuss.

        Steve
      • Jeff Peterson
        I ve found helpful the exchange between Bruce and Stevan on the reasons for continued adherence to Q and prospects for same. I here wish to comment on only one
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 8 11:49 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          I've found helpful the exchange between Bruce and Stevan on the reasons for
          continued adherence to Q and prospects for same. I here wish to comment on
          only one aspect of Bruce's reflections on the topic, viz., the motives that
          encourage adherence to Q. I'll begin by quoting the relevant passage from
          Bruce's original post to Synoptic-L for interested CrossTalkers who may
          have missed it.

          >5. (SNIP) What stands out to me
          >in the record from Reimarus to the present is that, whatever the specifics,
          >the Synoptic discussion *as a whole* is not content to abide in the thought
          >that GMark best represents the earliest Christianity. No sooner is that
          >proposition forcefully urged than *something* - Q or some other
          >hypothetical text, some archaeologically recovered text, Markan
          >Nonpriority, all the above - is put into the space between Jesus and GMark.
          (SNIP)
          >
          >As to why it should be so, I (SNIP) suspect that some critical point of
          >doctine is imperilled by
          >recognizing GMark as the most authentic statement of doctrine. My guess
          >would be that the felt doctrinal lack in Mark is the one that both GMt and
          >GLk already conspicuously fill, that GJn goes on to take into metaphysical
          >realms, and that noncanonical texts such as GThos also make statements
          >about, namely: an account of the origin and, so to speak, cosmological
          >status, of Jesus (and, in the case of GThos, of his alleged brother Jacob).
          >I cannot help being impressed by the fact that in the early centuries of
          >the Church it had become heretical to doubt that Jesus had existed from the
          >beginning of the world. We seem to have here no mere sentimental fondness
          >for the manger scene in the Mt/Lk nativity stories, but a perceived
          >central concern of early Christianity as such. That concern would seem to
          >be logically threatened by accepting GMark, which is entirely silent on
          >this issue, as an authentic account of the *earliest* Christianity.

          I think Bruce is right to consider scholarly motives along with evidence in
          assessing the vigor of Q in the past century and a half of NT scholarship,
          but I don't think the motive he suggests here will explain the attraction
          of the hypothesis, since the non-Marcan virginal conception shared by
          Matthew and Luke is not included in the reconstructed lost document
          accounting for their agreements against Mark (although it should be, as I
          suggested in a previous post on "Q 1:31"). Q rather answers to two distinct
          interests of scholars along the theological spectrum. First, for
          theologically conservative scholars, Q represents documentary evidence
          transmitted independently of Mark and thus gives us an additional witness
          to put on the stand when inquiring after the historical Jesus. Second, this
          witness's testimony can be particularly congenial to theologically liberal
          scholars at least since Harnack, as (legitimately or illegitimately) it is
          taken to represent a variety of early Christianity unencumbered with
          doctrines of atoning death and bodily resurrection; if one stratifies Q one
          can even be rid of that pre-scientific Second Coming business. So Q
          provides conservatives a further link in the evidential chain connecting us
          to Jesus, and Q provides liberals historical legitimation for excising from
          Christianity elements ill comporting with the Enlightenment distaste for
          superstition. What could be better?

          Best,

          Jeff

          Jeffrey Peterson
          Institute for Christian Studies
          Austin, Texas, USA
        • E. Bruce Brooks
          Topic: Arguments for Q From: Bruce In Response To: Jeff Peterson JEFF: I think Bruce is right to consider scholarly motives along with evidence in assessing
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 9 2:54 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Topic: Arguments for Q
            From: Bruce
            In Response To: Jeff Peterson

            JEFF: I think Bruce is right to consider scholarly motives along with
            evidence in assessing the vigor of Q in the past century and a half of NT
            scholarship, but I don't think the motive he suggests here will explain the
            attraction of the hypothesis, since the non-Marcan virginal conception
            shared by Matthew and Luke is not included in the reconstructed lost
            document accounting for their agreements against Mark (although it should
            be, as I
            suggested in a previous post on "Q 1:31").

            BRUCE: I agree with Jeff; I think the passages to which he points do
            logically belong in Q (assuming that anyone succeeds in holding Q
            accountable to its ostensible logic). In that case, his exception to the
            applicability of my general suggestion (which by the way was at the level
            of the collective Zeitgeist, and made a point of not addressing individual
            scholarly motives) vanishes, and my general suggestion stands. As a
            suggestion. A Zeitgeist suggestion.

            JEFF: Q rather answers to two distinct interests of scholars along the
            theological spectrum. First, for theologically conservative scholars, Q
            represents documentary evidence
            transmitted independently of Mark and thus gives us an additional witness
            to put on the stand when inquiring after the historical Jesus.

            BRUCE: I have earlier suggested, I think on CrossTalk, that the chief
            ultimate effect of Q is to privilege Luke, on perhaps the majority view the
            latest of the gospels, above either Matthew or Mark. The result in practice
            is to yield a very Lukan Historical Jesus, what I have called the "Nice
            Jesus," to which, for example, the deliberations of the Jesus Seminar, for
            whom Q is not a parallel early source but in practice a source *earlier
            than* Mark, have demonstrably led. My suggestion is that this result, and
            many parallel ones, is far more comfortable for the scholarly and church
            community than the more austere Markan Jesus would have been. And thus has,
            in Darwinian and not conspiratorial terms, a far higher chance of survival
            in scholarly debate, publication, and general acceptance.

            JEFF: Second, this witness's testimony can be particularly congenial to
            theologically liberal
            scholars at least since Harnack, as (legitimately or illegitimately) it is
            taken to represent a variety of early Christianity unencumbered with
            doctrines of atoning death and bodily resurrection; if one stratifies Q one
            can even be rid of that pre-scientific Second Coming business. So Q
            provides conservatives a further link in the evidential chain connecting us
            to Jesus, and Q provides liberals historical legitimation for excising from
            Christianity elements ill comporting with the Enlightenment distaste for
            superstition. What could be better?

            BRUCE: On the evidence, nothing so far. Whether the parallel track of
            Buddhist-attenuated Christianity will oontz it out, who can say? But
            analytically, I think Jeff is right to point to the further appeal implicit
            in the stratification of Q: Adherents can not only have their cake, they
            can pick their layer. This substantially broadens the possible adherent
            base, and, again, increases the Darwinian coefficient of Q as against other
            accounts of the Synoptic situation.

            E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... Since the earliest writings by Paul and Mark, and that of a separatecommunity with an early history (Yohannine) do not mention what is unique enough to be
            Message 5 of 9 , Sep 9 5:00 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              E. Bruce Brooks wrote:

              > Topic: Arguments for Q
              > From: Bruce
              > In Response To: Jeff Peterson
              >
              > JEFF: I think Bruce is right to consider scholarly motives along with
              > evidence in assessing the vigor of Q in the past century and a half of NT
              > scholarship, but I don't think the motive he suggests here will explain the
              > attraction of the hypothesis, since the non-Marcan virginal conception
              > shared by Matthew and Luke is not included in the reconstructed lost
              > document accounting for their agreements against Mark (although it should
              > be, as I
              > suggested in a previous post on "Q 1:31").
              >
              >

              Since the earliest writings by Paul and Mark, and that of a separatecommunity
              with an early history (Yohannine) do not mention what
              is unique enough to be mentioned (virgin birth), I can only assume
              that the tradition began as a midrash by the Matthean scribe and was
              later "historicized" by Luke (if Luke used Matthew) or by a Lukan
              redactor (if Luke has priority to Matthew).

              It's problematic to me to include this tradition in any primitive
              source (Q or otherwise) predating the destruction.

              What would be the reason for believing it should have been in Q?
              Mebbe I missed dat part.

              Jack
              jkilmon@...
            • Jeff Peterson
              ... I suggested in a post a few days ago that if the governing definition of Q is source of non-Marcan matter common to Matthew and Luke, then the common
              Message 6 of 9 , Sep 9 5:22 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                At 5:00 PM 9/9/98, Jack Kilmon wrote:

                >Since the earliest writings by Paul and Mark, and that of a separatecommunity
                >with an early history (Yohannine) do not mention what
                >is unique enough to be mentioned (virgin birth), I can only assume
                >that the tradition began as a midrash by the Matthean scribe and was
                >later "historicized" by Luke (if Luke used Matthew) or by a Lukan
                >redactor (if Luke has priority to Matthew).
                >
                >It's problematic to me to include this tradition in any primitive
                >source (Q or otherwise) predating the destruction.
                >
                >What would be the reason for believing it should have been in Q?
                >Mebbe I missed dat part.

                I suggested in a post a few days ago that if the governing definition of Q
                is "source of non-Marcan matter common to Matthew and Luke," then the
                common phrase KAI TEXH(I)//TEXETAI DE hUION KAIKALESEIS TO ONOMA AUTOU
                IHSOUN (Luke 1:31//Matt 1:21) qualifies and should figure as Q 1:31 in a
                methodologically rigorous reconstruction of Q.

                Best,

                Jeff

                Jeffrey Peterson
                Institute for Christian Studies
                Austin, Texas, USA
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... I understand now. I have been thinking about this from the Luke knew Matthew paradigm. I see this as classical aggadic midrash and since I cannot
                Message 7 of 9 , Sep 9 5:50 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jeff Peterson wrote:

                  > At 5:00 PM 9/9/98, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                  >
                  > >Since the earliest writings by Paul and Mark, and that of a separatecommunity
                  > >with an early history (Yohannine) do not mention what
                  > >is unique enough to be mentioned (virgin birth), I can only assume
                  > >that the tradition began as a midrash by the Matthean scribe and was
                  > >later "historicized" by Luke (if Luke used Matthew) or by a Lukan
                  > >redactor (if Luke has priority to Matthew).
                  > >
                  > >It's problematic to me to include this tradition in any primitive
                  > >source (Q or otherwise) predating the destruction.
                  > >
                  > >What would be the reason for believing it should have been in Q?
                  > >Mebbe I missed dat part.
                  >
                  > I suggested in a post a few days ago that if the governing definition of Q
                  > is "source of non-Marcan matter common to Matthew and Luke," then the
                  > common phrase KAI TEXH(I)//TEXETAI DE hUION KAIKALESEIS TO ONOMA AUTOU
                  > IHSOUN (Luke 1:31//Matt 1:21) qualifies and should figure as Q 1:31 in a
                  > methodologically rigorous reconstruction of Q.

                  I understand now. I have been thinking about this from the "Luke knew Matthew"
                  paradigm. I see this as classical aggadic midrash and since I cannot attribute
                  this primary Jewish literary style to Luke, have to assume it originated with
                  the Jewish Matthean scribe...even evidenced by his use of the LXX. The
                  "virgin birth" as creative historiography typical to midrashic style makes
                  sense to me given the Matthean scribe's noted preoccupation with OT
                  authority. In this case, it would be "special M" material which leaves the
                  question on how it got in Luke. I see only two trajectories. Either Matthew
                  was known to Luke or it's the result of a later Lukan redactor who attempting
                  to "harmonize" and not understanding midrashic style, historicised it.
                  Still struggling with the "Luke knew Matthew" possibility, I am, for now,
                  more comfortable with the latter.

                  Jack
                  jkilmon@...
                • Tim Reynolds
                  ... EBB s description of the Q community applies nicely to the AntiStratfordian community. I once attended a meeting, 2-300 people. Affable disagreement on
                  Message 8 of 9 , Sep 10 5:29 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Just as Q evades implication by any statement or
                    > concession made by any of its adherents (the previous point), so Q
                    > adherents are apparently entitled to differ *from each other,* without any
                    > perceptible weakening of their own position; on the contrary, with
                    > individual strengthening of their own position. If Q can be defended in
                    > individual discussions only by abandoning some of its tenets, that is in
                    > principle a point against Q. But there is no referee, no Whiteheadian
                    > higher recording consciousness, that keeps track of these moves, correlates
                    > them, and renders a running verdict as to where they collectively leave the
                    > Q position. Q adherents not only do not implicate Q, they do not implicate
                    > each other, or even themselves on some future occasion. Unless someone is
                    > keeping track.

                    EBB's description of the Q community applies nicely to the AntiStratfordian community. I once attended a meeting, 2-300 people. Affable disagreement on who had produced the Work, unanimous agreement that the Stratford fellow had *not*. No referee.

                    The auditory piracy model -- that the assemblers of Mt and Lk had access to Mk only via public readings -- eliminates one Q argument I've run across. It goes: Look how they dicked around with Mk, which they naively believed to be the revered Peter's recollections. So why not Q?

                    In the 1790's one Robert Holcroft's "greatest coup was the pirating of Beaumarchais's play Figaro, by memorizing it in the Paris theater where it was being played." They keep turning up.

                    I like the Q theme park.

                    Tertium datur,

                    Tim Reynolds


                    -----
                    Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/synoptic-l/?start=905
                    Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.