Amaleq13

I don't have time to address your entire OP right now but the above is misleading IMO. Paul is not pointing to the "life" of Christ but to his willingness to be a sacrifice (ie his death). To suggest that this is some way refers to or even suggests anything about a life lead prior to the execution is entirely inaccurate.

Zeichman

Maybe it's clear to you, but the rest of us need arguments rather than saying "too often to be a coincidence." How does your hypothesis explain the notable word-for-word agreement between Luke and Matthew if it was only oral tradition? That Luke and Matthew maintain a quite similar order of Q material, yet after John the Baptist, they never put it in the same context? Why does Luke consistently use a more "primitive" version of Q-material than Matthew, if Matthew was his source? Luke hardly, if ever, primitivises Mark's material (when so, it seems to be best explained by L-Mk overlap cf. Mk. 11:20-25//Lk 13:6-9). Why would the author of Luke needlessly significantly contradict Matthew (notably the birth story), instead of creating an account which could be harmonized?

Your appeal to Occam's razor is about the extent of your argument. This is aside from your allegations of pseudo-midrashism, which have yet to be put in the form of an argument.

You claim Q-advocates need to drop their biases, when rather it looks as if your opinion is based on you MJ presupposition. The odds of an MJ seem to decrease notably in light of a Q1 Document. Rather an HJ can easily exist with or without Q.

Toto

Book Review: The Case Against Q by Vorkosigan outlines the case against Q.

But also check out Q: If there is no Q, is there really no Q?

Conservative Christian apologists tend not to like Q, because it is the product of liberal scholarship and admits that the text of the Bible can be deconstructed. But liberal historicists (who are not usually called apologists) use Q to try to demonstrate that there was an early Galilean preacher behind the gospels. But even if there is, the "layers" reflect the sort of Jesus the liberal scholars like: the earliest layers reflect a Hellenistic wisdom preacher, the later layers the apolalyptic nutcase preacher.

Doherty accepts Q, and has argued for it on the JM list. But IIRC he does accept that there might have been a Galilean preacher who was later merged with Paul's mythical crucified savior to create the Jesus of the gospels.

In short, Q does not cut one way or the other in this debate. There is no way to date Q, even if it exists, to a period before or contemporaneous to the usual dates of Paul; and both Paul and Matthew (and the hypothetical Galilean preacher) relied on the Hebrew Scriptures.

Zeichman

Which, though I do consider myself Christian, is my position.
I thought that was G.A. Wells' manner of thinking, though I suppose the student probably isn't too disimilar from his sensei.
I think, rather, that it virtiually eliminates the History of Religions aspect of the MJ debate (not that I ever believed it had that much credibility to begin with), that Christianity can be reduced to an almost entirely demythologized form, leaving Jesus as anything but a "dying/rising god."


By the way, where can I read about the arguments for Q1-Q3? Burton Mack's book (Along with the Jesus Seminar's) seem almost exclusively to ride on his authority, rather than arguing anything about dependent layers. I was given a copy of Excavating Q about two weeks ago, but haven't had a chance to look at it. I know Bultmann demonstrated that Jesus' eschatological message (which he assumed existed), was wholly separate from his ethic in one of his essays on Form Criticism, but that particular section was extremely brief. So... help, anyone?

Peter Kirby

The locus classicus is Kloppenborg's The Formation of Q.

There's a summary online here.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

Unless his position has changed from when he first published his book and we had an email discussion the subject, he considers this to be possible but his primary position is that the sayings list of Q1 was originally anonymous and only later attributed to "Jesus".

yalla

Gidday Zeichman,

You wrote:"How does your hypothesis explain the notable word-for-word agreement between Luke and Matthew if it was only oral tradition? "

Firstly, I don't think alleged "oral tradition" is involved. That's another unsubstantiated assertion.
Secondly, as I said, verbatim agreement by "Matthew" and "Luke' is simply explained by one copying the other [presumably "Luke" is the culprit].
This should be the KISS principle. If you want to ADD a hypothetical document then good evidence would be needed to supplant that.

Question: "Why does Luke consistently use a more "primitive" version of Q-material than Matthew, if Matthew was his source?"
Response: That is a purely subjective opinion as to what constitutes "primitive", a very vague and plastic term. Farrer, Goulder and Goodacre disagree that "Luke'' is more "primitive". It's in the eye of the beholder and Qists have made a presumption before they start, there is an apologetic motive operating [see my post above].

Quote: "That Luke and Matthew maintain a quite similar order of Q material,..".
Response: Of course they do, their shared basic structure is controlled by that of "Mark" which they both copied.

Question: "Why would the author of Luke needlessly significantly contradict Matthew (notably the birth story), instead of creating an account which could be harmonized?"
Response: Why not?
"Luke" states, in his prologue he is going to do things differently to that which came before.
And he varies from "Mark" [I presume..?..you accept "Markan" priority] and "Matthew" and "Luke" frequently. He is writing HIS version.
Variation from "Mark"...just one example to establish precedence....he changes "6 days" after the epiphany on the mount to "about 8 days". Why? I don't know...but he does. Of course it's trivial but why not simply repeat 6?
Variation from "Matthew"....the order of the temptations is different. Why?
The answer can't be "Q" does it that way because we don't know what alleged Q has, it does not exist, it's only a hopeful speculation.
And, please note, the temptation material is straight from the Tanakh and "Mark" [see "Mark" 1.12-13, Ex. 34.28, 1Kings 19.8, Deut.8.3], there is no need to postulate a Q, we have the sources for this impossible to witness scenario.
Variations from himself...his 3 versions of the alleged Paul vision en route to Damascus contain variations which resist harmonisation.
And note, Paul does not say he had an external vision visible to others but, instead, "God was pleased to reveal his son IN me.. "..Gal.1.16. So "Luke" varies from that and creates a whole romantic scene complete with contradictions.
How many days before JC ascended after the resurrection according to "Luke"?

All the gospel writers are writing religious romantic propaganda stories [ " so that you may know the truth.."] and are basing them essentially, but not exclusively, on the Tanakh.

Some nice stories in "Matthew and "Luke" infancy stories. Shepherds, magi, evil king, wandering stars, caves and mangers, visits to Egypt, genealogies to fulfill jewish messianic expectations, miracles eg. angels and a young girl, slaughtered children and so on.
And most [all?] of them are common romantic religious themes/motifs of the time.

Why do you expect them to harmonise? How is this a case for Q? For nearly 2000 years it doesn't seem to have worried most Christians that they are mutually exclusive. They love a good yarn and most probably don't know which element came from which writer.
And they do have much in common in their infancy sections..they both...establish JC divinity at/pre-birth cf. "Mark's'' adult adoption by god,...have genealogies [and how many Christians, in the last millenia or so have been able to or wanted to analyse them?]..fill in the "gap" left by "Mark'' re the early days of JC....have some nice "prophecy fulfilled from the Tanakh" stuff.
The essence of what they are each setting out to achieve is similar..here is the divine son of god as a kid [with bonus stories].


For Toto:
What does IIRC mean?

I know E.D. goes along with Q more or less, I don't agree with him on that [I'll bet that will keep him awake at night].

Finally, I know scholars like Mack are not generally regarded as apologists but I do think his use of Q to push back the Jesus Movements to the 30s and 40s is mere apologetic usage [to create something for a HJ out of the pre-"Mark" vacuum].As you say ''But liberal historicists (who are not usually called apologists) use Q to try to demonstrate that there was an early Galilean preacher behind the gospels.''
I reckon that's using Q as a tactical retreat mechanism when they can't accept the conservative position.

Thanks for the discussion people.

Zeichman

Blessed are you poor.//Blessed are the poor in spirit.
cf. Luke's "difficult" q-readings:14:26, and a de-spiritualized Luke 12:4//Mt 10:28

Quintessential example. Can you provide any examples of Luke despiritualizing Markan material (aside from the one that I already mentioned earlier)?

Because Luke is a historian. Relatively faithful to Mark, then quite not-so with Matthew.
Wouldn't Occam's razor dictate that he didn't use Mark? Wouldn't just Matthew suffice, given the minimal material which is in Mk and Lk, but not Matt?
Scribal mistakes, though speculative, can easily explain this. Not events like the Birth Narrative taking unnecessary deviations.
Historicity is a completely different matter. Midrashim isn't terribly relevant, as far as I can tell.
I'm not convinced the author-editor of Luke knew Paul's letters in any depth, other than generalizations about his problems and theology. As a compiler of sources, Luke had gotten much lazier since his/her gospel days (cf. the "we" sections), as had his theological goals certainly changed.
This is no different than my pressupposition that a fair amount of it is based on the HJ. I'll certainly concede that events were expanded or created via midrash of stories and characters from the Hebrew Bible (especially the Moses cyle in Matthew and Elijah/Elisha in the Markan miracle stories. But I'm not sure how this ultimately goes back to the original question.

Notably, I find these stories to be historically worthless.
Because it provides independence of Luke and Matthew, which necessitates some form of Q.
Don't let Tatian hear you say that.
The virgin birth has long been demonstrated as pushing back Jesus' adoption:
cf. Paul's Kurios by ressurection, Mark's adoption at baptism, Lk&Matt at birth and John at the beginning of time. Given how most scholars believe that Luke and Matthew were written roughly contemporaneously, it is unsuprising that they agree on the point at which Jesus was adopted. The geneologies, appear to be independent of each other. Rather than pointing out broad similarities, you'll need to give striking, otherwise inexplicable examples to convince me of Lukan dependence on Matthew.

Amaleq13

If I Recall Correctly

yalla

Gidday Zeichman,
You ask: " Rather than pointing out broad similarities, you'll need to give striking, otherwise inexplicable examples to convince me of Lukan dependence on Matthew.

That's easy.

Are you ready?


Wait for it!


[Drumroll]

I give you....Q!

You see that's the point.

That's the stuff that is shared identically by the 2.

Then there is the stuff that is almost exactly identical, such as the temptation scene.

Then there is the stuff that is similar in intent/ motif /theme etc but not identical eg. infancy and resurrection stuff...the stuff that "Mark" didn't have.

Then there is the stuff that is individual to each of them, their own creative idiosyncratic material labelled "M" and "L".

There is a range, a gamut, from total dependency through to thoroughly independent.

That which you asked me to provide is already known to you.

A few comments.
I shouldn't call that stuff Q. The name presupposes the question and the answer.
It's an example of conventional terminology restricting the discussion.

Quote:" Because Luke is a historian"
Well I'm not so sure about that. Actually I think his primary motive is theological .Along the lines of [1] "Mark"/Luke interprets...for use in apologetic, instruction and worship the tradition they have received." Browning "The Gospel a/c to St. Luke" p. 16. But I wouldn't emphasize tradition. [2] "The very arrangement of the [infancy] material brings out the theological message'' ibid p.16. [PS Browning has a theological explanation for the temptation variation, seems a bit forced to me]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by the latter part of this, see quote, it seems to imply that "Luke" did know "Matthew" and I presume I'm misreading you? Quote:
"Relatively faithful to Mark, then quite not-so with Matthew." Given that "Luke" and "Matthew" share about 200 verses that seems odd.

I think you missed my points here,quote:"I'm not convinced the author-editor of Luke knew Paul's letters in any depth, ". Maybe I wasn't clear. What I was trying to show was that "Luke'' is not consistent when he is using other writers' material or even his own. In his gospel the resurrection to ascension is almost immediate but in Acts it takes 40 days.
So expecting him to copy mindlessly, a sort of cut and paste editor, seems unwarranted.
He says it's going to be his version and it is. I repeat, some verbatim [or nearly] "Mark", ditto treatment of "Matthew" and then some similar but different and then something completely different [L].
As Browning says ".. each evangelist has given the church a CREATIVE [my emphasis] and skilful constuction ...in terms relevant to his own generation" p.16. These guys are not merely hacks ["As a compiler of sources ",] there is a lot of creative writing going on.

Quote: " Notably, I find these stories to be historically worthless."
Me too.
But that ignores that they are thematically and functionally similar and both borrow heavily from the Tanakh. As the bulk of their writings do.

Quote: "This is no different than my pressupposition that a fair amount of it is based on the HJ."
But it is. Very different.
You are basing your perception on the gospellers as compilers of oral tradition based on a real fella. Is that right?
I'm basing mine on the gospellers as creative theological propagandists getting their ideas and even their words from the Tanakh, each other, "Mark'' first and then "Matthew", other sources, and their own imaginations. Embellishing, varying, copying included.
I don't see a place for an asserted but unsubstantiated oral tradition that suddenly appears post-"Mark" and which serves the same apologetic function as Q. Namely it lets scholars create an untestable link backwards to an alleged JC.

Finally your point about "de-spiritualizing'' interests me. I don't mind pursuing that.
Thanks.