Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith
I might note that I am not entirely a Q skeptic... at least not yet. I think Farrer is easier for me to defend than the two-source theory, but there are still a few remaining straws in the Q pile for me.
|
I'm in a bit of a haze in this subject.... |
You are far from alone in
that lifeboat. In fact, scoot over, will you?
Quote:
|
...but Farrer, when I think of it, has always seemed up against it in explaining things that Q does best: explaining why things seem to be one source in Mt while they are two in Lk. The mission in Mt is two missions in Lk (12 & 70).
|
You are basically saying that Luke has a doublet here: 2 mission send-offs. I admit I have sometimes seen this as an indicator for the two-source theory. On the other hand, among the synoptists it is Matthew that actually seems to contain the most doublets. One of many examples: Mark 9.43-45 is parallel both to Matthew 5.29-30 and to Matthew 18.8-9; does this indicate that Matthew got one half of the doublet from Mark and the other half from some other source? Maybe. But it also may simply be Matthew creatively doubling his material. So maybe Luke does the same thing.
And sometimes the Lucan doublets are of material found in Mark, not in Matthew. For example, Luke 8.16 and Luke 11.33 form a doublet of Mark 4.21. If such doublets indicate two separate sources, then here the two sources must be Mark and something else; if the something else is Q, then the contours of that document begin to change a lot as we accumulate such doublets.
Quote:
|
Material in the sermon on the mount is spread through Lk.
|
On this abstract level, one could also say that material spread through Luke is gathered up in the sermon on the mount in Matthew. It is only in the details, IMVHO, that such scattering or gathering arguments can gain momentum. I myself am rather fond of
one such detailed scenario as suggested by John Kloppenborg that would tend to support the two-source theory.
Quote:
|
A few other examples that have crossed my mind don't raise their ugly heads at the moment, but the basics seem to me to be that it's harder to get to Lk via Matthew than to get to both Mt and Lk via a second source, which more easily allows one redactor to unite sources (rMt) and the other to keep them separated (rLk).
|
In some cases I agree with this; in other cases I think the evidence points in other directions.
Quote:
|
Aren't minor agreements better explained using a 2 source analysis allowing scribal cross fertilization down the line?
|
Depends on which ones and how much scribal cross-fertilization we are talking about.
Quote:
|
I tend to keep out of this stuff normally because it so often runs to water with "scholar X said..." but "Y said..." -- at least as I see it.
|
It can certainly devolve to that point at times. I like it when the data remain on the very surface of the argument and the names of pioneering scholars are provided only as sources for the data collection. Hawkins still stands out in my mind as having provided a key service in arranging so much of it all those years ago, but I think it is a mistake to turn to him in an
ipsi dixit sort of way; rather, it is his relentless collection of the data that makes him so valuable.
Ben.
12-13-2007, 05:57 AM
