Date: Tue Oct 17 1995 - 17:52:26 EDT
Re. why Q "fails the test:"
NI>2] Again, perhaps it would be useful to explain why it "fails the test".
NI>So far, the only of argument presented has been amounts "we don't have a
NI>copy of Q", which as we've seen is of --at most-- margin relevance. The
NI>important question is how well does the 2DH explain the text? On that
NI>topic there has been precious little discussion.
1.) The possibility for which I've argued (that the present state of
Lk and Mt is due to Lk altering Matthean material due to theological
and creative factors) has been largely ignored in the scholarly guild
simply because of the overwhelming (and zealous, might I add--
"fundamentalist hogwash" indeed) popularity of the two document
hypothesis. Too many people have too much work involved in the
hypothesis to want to clearly and fairly consider its shortcomings.
2.) Is the fact that Q has no independent evidence of existence
really of only marginal relevance? Especially when the other
possibility, which relies on demonstrably extant documents, is
plausible? Especially when there is so little unanimity as to the
character, limits, content and thrust of this phantom document?
For example: are we really to assume that Q consists only of the
non-Markan material shared by Mt and Lk? That there were two
documents used by Mt and Lk that had absolutely *no* overlap?
We *could* hypothesize that Q was actually a much larger document
than just the non-Markan shared material. Perhaps it was a large as
(or larger than) canonical Mk, with a passion and resurrection
narrative--that would at least explain the minor agreements. We could
even hypothesize that Q is the source of the extra-gospel *logia*.
All would be just as logical and plausible as the current Q consensus,
if we may even speak of such an animal.
But by this time Q is hardly the "primitive, non-theological,
non-narrative gospel" that the vast majority of modern redaction
criticism assumes it to be.
And even if Q *is* nothing but the non-Markan material shared by Mt
and Lk: we have there a narrative introduction with the preaching of
John the Baptist (note minor agreements there). We have Jesus as the
embodiment of Israel, tempted in the desert and responding with
appropriate sections of Deuteronomy. We have a geneology that
establishes Jesus as the Son of David, son of Abraham (more explicitly
in Mt, but also present in Lk).
Sorry folks--that's hardly the opening section of a primitive,
non-narrative, non-theological gospel. That's Matthew. The most
logical explanation for the current state of Mt and Lk in these
portions is that Lk has taken Mt's account and universalized it
by removing the more overtly Semitic elements.
PLS <sorry, continued again>
--- SLMR 2.1a Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teen-aged boys.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:30 EDT