Freethought & Rationalism Archive

2-J · 03-19-2008, 01:58 AM

Maybe Q was lost because Matthew / Luke or proto-Matthew / proto-Luke superceded it.

Many hypotheses, even non-Q ones, postulate various proto texts, recognising the idea that a text could have died out quickly in those days if other versions superceded them.

And of course from Thomas we do know that sayings gospels existed - that's support for the Q hypothesis. If Q existed, it's reasonable to assume that sayings gospels existed. Then one was found, supporting that.

For what it's worth I am still in the Q camp because to me it's a an immediately appealing thesis and I've not yet seen anything that can sway me from it; but I'm open to suggestion and eager to read more on the subject.

youngalexander · 03-19-2008, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

On the rationalization that Q could be 'lost' cos we know lots of documents were lost, I suggest that we need to firstly establish that Q did exist, so that it could subsequently be lost.
Otherwise we could postulate the 'loss' of anything we care to imagine and point to loss of other known or suspected documents as evidence that that for which we have no evidence must have existed.
Establishing a case against either "Luke' or "Matthew' copying the other should be the first step.
Establishing a case for Q as the only viable alternative should be a [second] part
of that.
Then wondering why such an influential document available in multiple copies to its readers in 2 [or 3 if you wish to assert that "Mark' also had access to a copy] different times and places and milieus at least without drawing attention from anyone else, was subsequently, conveniently, 'lost' without trace.

A question of the probability of such probabilities - call in the Bayesian!

I have been mulling my way thru Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts by Harry Gamble.

A question for the assembled literati:
Now we are often told that only 1% of ancient lit. has survived. SM has just told us that only 10% survived. From whence are these statistics derived? If they have validity, does that extend to Christians? In which periods? In which locations?

Gamble seems to be of the opinion that Christians were highly text orientated and much prone to disseminate and conserve such documents. The well known proclivity for codices for instance - more bang (text) for your buck (papyrus).

Given yalla's argument above, one might think that the probabilities for the preservation of Q would be greater than those for Mt or Lk?

Just an innocent query, from one who suspects that you literary types pay too little attention to the physical reality.

Solitary Man · 03-19-2008, 09:59 AM

Sorry, I've seen 99% before, not 90%.

Gorit Maqueda · 03-19-2008, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg01

Does anyone know of verses within the Matthew/Luke spots where it looks as if Matthew may reason to think Matthew was drawing from Luke rather than the other way around?

Some would argue that Luke 6:20 "Blessed are you who are poor" is more primitive than Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit"

[...]

Andrew Criddle

What about Robert Price's rendition of Matthew 5:3 ?
"Blessed in spirit are the poor..."

Is this a possible translation, or is it artificial?

andrewcriddle · 03-20-2008, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorit Maqueda

What about Robert Price's rendition of Matthew 5:3 ?
"Blessed in spirit are the poor..."

Is this a possible translation, or is it artificial?

MAKARIOI hOI PTWChOI TW(i) PNEUMATI is the original, and it is part of a list of sayings Blessed are......
IMHO "Blessed in spirit are the poor..." is not a natural way of rendering the passage, both in terms of its word order and context.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-19-2008, 01:58 AM	#21
2-J Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: UK Posts: 179	Maybe Q was lost because Matthew / Luke or proto-Matthew / proto-Luke superceded it. Many hypotheses, even non-Q ones, postulate various proto texts, recognising the idea that a text could have died out quickly in those days if other versions superceded them. And of course from Thomas we do know that sayings gospels existed - that's support for the Q hypothesis. If Q existed, it's reasonable to assume that sayings gospels existed. Then one was found, supporting that. For what it's worth I am still in the Q camp because to me it's a an immediately appealing thesis and I've not yet seen anything that can sway me from it; but I'm open to suggestion and eager to read more on the subject.

03-19-2008, 09:59 AM	#23
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	Sorry, I've seen 99% before, not 90%.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.