|
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
11-10-2012, 11:54 AM
|
#1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
"Q" as defined by B. Mack & J. Kloppenborg
I've been monitoring a fairly disappointing thread on the relationship of Q sayings and sayings in Gospel of Thomas (at Mike Grondin's site) and it prompted me to finish a comparative table I cobbled together from sources in 2001. For those who are interested on "Q," here it is:
Comments welcome (not about the table, unless you can do better, but about the implications to the study of early Christian development. DCH |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
11-10-2012, 12:12 PM
|
#2 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
|
Since TH is a saying gospel
would you say it was authored, without relying on GL or GM ? I dont see those as a source And with Q being used in 3 different gospels, do you think this would help determine that it was borrowed from a written source VS oral tradition? Im still leaning written source, from little I know |
|
|
|
11-10-2012, 04:19 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
"Q" is basically the gospel material common to Luke and Matthew (aka the "double tradition"), but not to Mark, plus a smidgeon of Mark that seems to be theologically related to some of the double tradition. The reason that many think the double tradition represents a separate source ("Q") is that it most easily explains why they have this common material while Mark does not.
In my opinion, those who want to have Matthew be the first gospel, with Luke copying and adapting material from Matthew, with Mark being an epitome of either Matthew or Luke, are simply trying to preserve early Christian assertions about who wrote the three synoptic gospels (Papias, Hegesippus, etc). I think that early Christians really had no clue who actually wrote them, and invented pious, although fanciful, "explanations" for who wrote what and when. I am only passing on what Burton Mack and John Kloppenborg have done to "explain" the composition history of the double tradition. Kloppenborg's is the one that currently has the most support. The present day consensus that Jesus was a radical wisdom teacher whose message was "Judaized" by his family before being incorporated into the gentile church's interpretation of his significance is simply a development of cliche 19th century scholarship. Instead of trying to imagine a Cynic-like/Buddhist/Libertine Jesus whose teachings were Judaized, I imagine a failed political Jewish Jesus who was gentilized into a divine savior. The gospels are then "apologies" created by a gentile Jesus faction to explain why they rever a founder who clearly executed for sedition. "It was all a misunderstanding, based on the recklessness of Jewish leaders who proved to have been punished by god for the rebellion against the Romans." The double tradition was more than likely a collection of generic ANE wisdom sayings that was adapted to present Jesus as a harmless philosopher made a scapegoat by the evil Jews. DCH Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
11-10-2012, 06:55 PM
|
#5 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
|
It's a good table, David,
And it also agrees with the first sayings in Thomas as in Funk and Hoover's The Five Gospels. |
|
|
|
11-11-2012, 08:06 PM
|
#6 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Kloppenborg's article "The Sayings Gospel Q: Literary and Stratigraphie Problems" in Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q (edited by Risto Uro, 1996) is where I got Kloppenborg's breakdown and stratification of Q.
In this same article he also compares his own thinking on the extent and stratification of Q with 7 other recent scholars (although not B. Mack). It is only an image file, but 66 pages long, and very detailed. If anyone wants to see what real scholarship looks like ... Go take a look at that article. DCH |
|
|
|
11-11-2012, 09:54 PM
|
#7 | |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-2012, 08:27 AM
|
#8 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
Quote:
 Scholarship is even now, inevitably proceeding step by step, and concession by concession, towards the acknowledgment a of wholly literary and mythical Jebus & Co. . |
|
|
|
|
11-12-2012, 10:02 AM
|
#9 | ||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Yeah, I thought that using the word "consensus" would invite a nay-say. The word "consensus" differs between one group or another.
Many conservative Christian scholars have a consensus that Q is a chimera because all of the synoptic Gospels were "divinely inspired" and thus would be expected to show a certain degree of similarity. The more liberal scholars (although some like Kloppenborg are "Evangelicals" in the Scandinavian/European sense) tend to want to see Jesus as a harmless peasant wisdom teacher whose tragic death became the seed for the development of Christianity as we know it. Very "social gospel" oriented. Thus the appeal to a wisdom teacher Jesus whose teachings were handed down as (a) Q source(s). Of course there are the "Q Sceptics" who prefer to believe that church tradition has got at least some things right about the authors, and relative order or places of composition: "Matthew" wrote his gospel in Hebrew and it was translated into Greek. "Mark" composed his gospel by epitomizing Matthew. "Luke" composed his Gospel from several previous sources (Matthew and Mark). I am not endorsing any of these positions as hard facts, just relaying the information. The Synoptic Problem is one of the few areas I have never had the gumption to become intimately familiar with, and maybe this is the start of an attempt to do so. DCH Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
11-12-2012, 03:37 PM
|
#10 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
I have found your discussion here quite fair and illuminating David. There could well be an original story about a rebel leader which was transformed into a Greek mystery religion. My only question is why we don't know of any prominent (and one would have to expect that Jesus would have been a famous rebel leader) rebel leaders named Jesus or Joshua in the generation or two before the destruction of the Jewish temple. In other words, could the name 'jesus' have been part of the adaption process? Could the original rebel leader have had another name - let's say 'Judas' - and the heretical traditions about a substitution for Jesus had their basis in a historical narrative without a rebel leader of the same name.
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
25), 26-27 
