Corpus-Paul

[Thomas P Roche <troche AT acsu.buffalo.edu>]

On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Stevan Davies wrote:

> > From:          "George Blaisdell"
> 
> > Were the gospels then written with the Pauline Corpus clearly in view?
> 
> No. There is no reason to think that any author of a gospel
> ever had heard of Paul. And yet Luke certainly had great 
> respect for him and his ideas not one of which, so far as I know,
> is certainly reflected in the Gospel of Luke. Therefore,
> oddly enough, one can say that Luke's gospel was written
> with the Pauline Corpus (broadly speaking, there's no evidence
> of any written Paul material being known by Luke) clearly in
> Luke's view, which nevertheless had no impact at all on the text 
> Luke wrote. Go figure.
>  
> > And what about the presumed "Q"?  Prior or post Paul?
> 
> Q is generally dated around 60, based on nothing. IF Q was used by
> Mt and if Mt was prior to Luke and if Mt was written ca. 85 then
> Q existed prior to 85. That's about all we know, if that.

Of course, contrary to the blatherings of shopworn 19th century higher
critics, 'Q' does not exist, being a fantasmic construct of those who
deisre that the Biblical texts as they ARE not really be what they are,
i.e., not really MEAN what they say they do.  We might as well be
discussing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
 > 
> Dale Allison  recently wrote "The Jesus Tradition in Q" reviewed online 
> by Edward Meadors 

That supposed scholars write ABOUT 'Q' do nothing to alter the irreality
thereof.

> 
> http://www.sbl-site.org/SBL/Reviews/1563382075.html
> 
> from which I quote the following:
> 
> "Allison advances his own past arguments that Paul knew and alluded 
> to Q's missionary
> discourse (Q 10:1-16). After carefully analyzing 1 Cor 9:14=Q 10:7b; 
> 1 Cor 9:4=Q 10:7a; 1 Cor
> 10:27=Q 10:8; and 1 Thess 4:8=Q 10:16, he concludes "Paul 
> indisputably knew at least one saying that
> appeared in Q's missionary discourse; and the apostle's letters 
> contain several lines that echo portions of
> Lk 10:1-16. Are we not invited to reckon seriously with the possibility 
> that Paul knew a form of the
> missionary discourse related to Q 10:2-16?" (p. 111). This is a 
> bold proposal. Especially when only one
> of the allusions he cites is uncontested (1 Cor 9:14=Lk 10:26), 
> while the rest are hotly debated. The
> theory, however, is historically plausible and provocative. 
> Though it cannot be proven (or disproven!), in
> my judgment the author should be commended for being the 
> first to cite the saturation of possible Pauline
> allusions to Q 10:1-16 in 1 Corinthians and authoring the theory 
> that Paul knew and used these sayings
> not as independent logia but as excerpts from a single block of 
> Q material."

Again, breaking 'Q' into biblical-style chapter and verse enumerations
does nothing to alter its 20th century man-made, totally unattested
status.

If this list really be for the serious academic study of the Pauline
epistles, it would be well to employ the same standards of real historical
analysis that other is always applied by serious historians to other
ancient texts.

Thomas Roche
Dept. of Classics
SUNY Buffalo

 > 
> There's too many "ifs" in this for me, but perhaps a full reading
> of Allison's arguments will convince.
> 
> Steve Davies
> College Misericordia
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: troche AT acsu.buffalo.edu
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> 
>