Re: _The Formation of Q_

From: Stephen C. Carlson (
Date: Sun Aug 25 1996 - 23:09:33 EDT

At 04:38 8/24/96 -0400, Rod Decker wrote:
>Stephen Carlson said,
>>I've read quite a few Supreme Court cases and I'm willing to bet that
>>many of the opinions have a complex literary history, starting with
>>the winning laywer's brief that is converted into the law clerk's
>>first draft which was edited and reworked by the justice and modified
>>after comments.
>That may be true... but the question is, do you think that you could
>reconstruct the actual documents (to say nothing of the interveaning
>recensions) with any degree of accuracy along with the "theology" of the
>original pieces working just from the final product?

For certain decisions, especially the 5-4 votes, it would seem possible
to analyze the opinion to find out which portions are there because it
was necessary to get a justice to vote for it. Sometimes those hunches
are verified by the later publication of internal memos or memoirs.
Other opinions would seem to be virtually impossible to extract previous

I suppose a good control for Kloppenborg's method would be to extract
Mark from the contents of Matthew (assuming that Mark and Luke are not
extant). Would all the fulfillment quotations be put in a secondary

Stephen Carlson

Stephen C. Carlson                   : Poetry speaks of aspirations,              : and songs chant the words. :               -- Shujing 2.35

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:49 EDT