[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Q
> As a follow-up to Sterling's comments, I would simply add that, whatever one
> makes of the dating of the Gospel of Thomas, surely one of the things that
> Thomas does is to underscore the POSSIBILITY of the existence of a document
> like Q, thus undercutting the objection that a Gospel must be a narrative (like
> Mark).
As long as it remains stated that it demonstrates the POSSIBILITY-I have
read some who have made it a certainty. It is that certitude that I
react to. Second, perhaps I missed something in the earlier posts but I
see a couple of connections in yours that I was unaware of. a. that to
reject the guild's use and teaching of Q results in a belief that the
gospel must be in narrative form. It seems to me that this is a non
sequitur. Below you state the problem better-a variety of sources-the
guild cites one-Q, ubiquitous, omnisicient, multi layered SOURCE waved
over gospel criticism like a magic wand. I think that the Hellenistic
world was a tad more complex, and we would better put our efforts into
Quellen rather than Quelle. b. that GospThom underscores the
possibility-what does the Gospel of Thomas have to do with it? About all
those Hellenistic sayings collections of various philosophers etc-I think
that they demonstrate the possibility of collected sayings of Jesus
better than Thomas, or at least as well.
>
> Thus, even if the text of the NT WAS fluid before the 4th century, as Sterling
> is willing to allow, a variety of aids were certainly created, some of which
> were in narrative form, some of which were in poetic form (carmina Christi),
> some were doubtless in oral form (Papias' predilection), and some were very
> likely in a kind of florilegial form (Thomas, and probably Q).
>
> I think there is reason to believe that early Christians made use of a variety
> of aids and devices for both preserving and disseminating their traditions.
> Why should one presuppose rigidity of form when everything we are learning
> about the hellenistic world, including hellenistic Judaism, implies a wide
> scope of literary forms?
>
And this is the difficulty I have. As I see it out of one side of the
mouth we say that there must have been a multiplicity of documents in
diverse forms disseminated in sundry ways. Out of the other side of the
mouth we reduce that world to 2 sources-Q and Mark. I will ask what a
student once asked me: Why can't the differences between Matthew's
citations of Q and Luke's Q be different documents altogether rather than
saying that they are different editions of the same thing? The
difference perhaps between CNN, AP, and the NYT.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
Follow-Ups:
- Re: Q
- From: Larry Swain <lswain@billings.lib.mt.us>
References:
- Re: Q
- From: Sterling Bjorndahl <bjorndahl@augustana.ab.ca>