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

[Synoptic-L] Dunn quotation

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    The case *against* Q is only as strong as it is because the case *for* Q has been overstated (James D. G. Dunn, Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      "The case *against* Q is only as strong as it is because the case
      *for* Q has been overstated" (James D. G. Dunn, "Altering the Default
      Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus
      Tradition", _NTS_ 49 (2003), pp. 139-75, p. 172, emphasis original).

      Now this would make a good exam question, with a "Discuss" on the
      end, wouldn't it? I'd be inclined to disagree with Dunn myself, not
      least in that my own arguments against Q do not work with any
      alleged overstatement of the case for Q but with what I'd see as the
      classic arguments for the Two-Source Theory, especially alternating
      primitivity & Luke's order. I'd be interested to hear what others
      think.

      Mark
      -----------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
      Birmingham B15 2TT UK

      http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
      http://NTGateway.com


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Jim West
      ... I think any argument that finds its strength in the weakness of another argument is itself a weak argument if it has to be propped up on a weaker one.
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        At 04:28 PM 6/6/03 +0100, you wrote:
        >"The case *against* Q is only as strong as it is because the case
        >*for* Q has been overstated" (James D. G. Dunn, "Altering the Default
        >Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus
        >Tradition", _NTS_ 49 (2003), pp. 139-75, p. 172, emphasis original).

        I think any argument that finds its strength in the weakness of another
        argument is itself a weak argument if it has to be propped up on a weaker
        one. Such an argument simply leads to a series of theses based on the
        rather silly premiss that "this theory is at least a little bit better than
        the one it contradicts and for that reason should be believed"! Not really
        a good basis for logic now is it?

        I think arguments are proven on their own merits, not in comparison with
        other arguments.

        At least, thats what I think.


        Jim

        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

        Jim West
        Quartz Hill School of Theology
        Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies

        Biblical Studies Resources
        http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

        "Illum oportet crescere, me autem minui"


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Emmanuel Fritsch
        ... Rather difficult : what is the level of confidence for an evidence in history ? An evidence is allways evaluated against other evidences. For instance,
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Jim West a écrit :
          >
          > At 04:28 PM 6/6/03 +0100, you wrote:
          > >"The case *against* Q is only as strong as it is because the case
          > >*for* Q has been overstated" (James D. G. Dunn, "Altering the Default
          > >Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus
          > >Tradition", _NTS_ 49 (2003), pp. 139-75, p. 172, emphasis original).
          >
          > I think any argument that finds its strength in the weakness of another
          > argument is itself a weak argument if it has to be propped up on a weaker
          > one. Such an argument simply leads to a series of theses based on the
          > rather silly premiss that "this theory is at least a little bit better than
          > the one it contradicts and for that reason should be believed"! Not really
          > a good basis for logic now is it?
          >
          > I think arguments are proven on their own merits, not in comparison with
          > other arguments.

          Rather difficult : what is the level of confidence for an
          evidence in history ? An evidence is allways evaluated against
          other evidences.

          For instance, Mark Goodacre, in "Fatigue in the synoptic", says
          that the argument of Fatigue is strong. Implicitly, he means
          "strong against other arguments", and it is not scandalous.

          What looks harder, in Dunn's statement, is the fact that we should
          distinguish two classes of Q arguments : the class of good, moderate
          Q theory, and the class of Q-fundamentalists; and it looks, according
          Dunn, as if the against-Q followers would have allways adressed only Q
          fundamentalists, and never the good and moderate Q theory.
          It looks hard to believe, and in fact, it would not be believed without
          further arguments.

          May you say us, Mark, if Dunn provides good arguments for this affirmation ?

          a+
          manu


          > At least, thats what I think.
          >
          > Jim
          >
          > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
          >
          > Jim West
          > Quartz Hill School of Theology
          > Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies
          >
          > Biblical Studies Resources
          > http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
          >
          > "Illum oportet crescere, me autem minui"
          >
          > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... No, I m afraid not. It s just an assertion in a footnote in which Dunn refers to my Case Against Q and Cyril Rodd s recent Expository Times article on the
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 6, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            On 6 Jun 2003 at 19:08, Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

            > May you say us, Mark, if Dunn provides good arguments for this
            > affirmation ?

            No, I'm afraid not. It's just an assertion in a footnote in which
            Dunn refers to my Case Against Q and Cyril Rodd's recent Expository
            Times article on the reconstruction of Q. There are several other
            negative references to Q sceptics in the course of the article, eg.
            me, Farmer, Goulder. But Dunn also clearly feels some antagonism
            towards Kloppenborg and others who attempt to reconstruct the text of
            Q and there are negative references to that enterprise throughout.
            So I think he sees himself as standing between two extreme poles.

            The main purpose of Dunn's interesting article will be familiar to
            anyone involved in the Xtalk sponsored on-line seminar with Dunn a
            little while ago. His basic claim is that what he calls the literary
            paradigm dominates the thinking of NT scholarship to the extent that
            this is a kind of "default setting". What we need to do is to enter
            into a completely different mind-set, one in which oral tradition is
            primary. We need to make this our "default setting".

            His paper is his SNTS presidential address 2002 and it gives a taster
            of a forthcoming book on the same subject. I'd be interested to hear
            if anyone else has any thoughts on this because it impacts directly
            on our understanding of the Synoptics. If I can get a moment and if
            there is interest, I'd be happy to share my own thoughts about Dunn's
            article.

            Mark
            -----------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
            University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
            Birmingham B15 2TT UK

            http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
            http://NTGateway.com


            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.