Yuri Kuchinsky

This concept of Mark/Q overlaps assumes that Mark was the earliest gospel, and that there was a 'Q'.

Since both of these assumptions seem to be misguided, I wonder what use is there in discussing Mark/Q overlaps?

Yuri.

Vorkosigan

For the 99% of us who are aware that Mark was the first gospel written and the idea that Mark is based on Luke is absurd, it is quite an interesting topic.

"Some kind of" is very broad. I think this is the minimal position everyone shares as well. There must be a third party vector that links all three gospels.

It's worse that that. If you admit Mark in, there's no basis for Q.

• "...if these coincidences were explained by the Markan knowledge of Q. At first sight the similar divergences of Matthew and Luke from Mark give reason to believe that Mark is not their only common source. The deviations from Mark are then explained by means of Q. But, as soon as Q is reconstructed, one should conclude that it was also Mark's source. So far as I see, this result simply contradicts the premise, which should consequently lead to a re-evaluation of the premise. That is to say, if Mark used Q as a source, Q can no longer be reconstructed only on the basis of Matthew and Luke"(Dunderberg 1995, p502).

If Mark used Q, than Q cannot be recovered by studying Matt and Luke. By definition Q is material shared by Matt and Luke. But if the writer of Mark knows Q, than Q has no boundary. There's no way to delimitQ. Anything in Mark might well be fair game.

Mark-Q overlaps are simply a category created to keep this material from blowing up Q.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

This isn't necessarily true. Kloppenborg, for example, has written of thematic consistency in Q (what he terms "the Lot cycle," Q's use of Sophia, and a sympathy with the Deuteronist are the three examples I recall from a JBL article written in response to Goulder, found here. The suggestion that "Q has no boundary" other than that which isn't found in Mark is a rather oversimplified assessment.

Secondly, Q exists because of Matthew and Luke's relative independence. Whether Mark knew Q or not does nothing to affect whether or not Q exists. If Luke knew Matthew (or vice versa), there is no Q. If Mark knew Q, it becomes harder to extract Q, but it has no bearing on whether or not Matthew and Luke shared a common source.

This material can't blow up Q. The only thing that can affect it is the relationship between Matthew and Luke.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

yalla

With the realization that gospels 2 and 3 were closely based, as in literary dependence, on g"Mark" Christian scholars exposed several problems.
Bang went the disciple eyewitness status of "Matthew". He largely copied an acknowledged and admitted non witness.
Christian "traditions'' re who wrote what when and in what language were exposed as probably idle self serving speculations and hope.
"Apostolic succession and authority" were rendered not credible.

Big problems.

Add to that the undeniable literary dependence , in some direction, shared by "Matthew" and "Luke" and the credibility of the latter 2 synoptics is severely shaken.

What was required?
A document, or documents, that could be claimed to be authentic witnesses to an early JC tradition.
How to find these hypothetical documents?
Chop the existing material into slabs and claim they were the original sources of the gospel writers.
Hence the "Signs" gospel, hence the "Miracle'' stories, claimed as original material.

Oral tradition MUST have existed...right? [otherwise it's all literary creativity aka fiction, based on existing Tanakh quotes and motifs and some Gk. stuff]. So constantly use the term "tradition" to explain where the writers got their ideas and why they vary in similar scenarios..."traditions" from various sources you see.

The trouble is those 200 verses that show literary dependence in gospels 2 and 3.
Obviously written not oral.

That's OK just :
[1] claim that neither could have copied the other. [Otherwise it's just a merry-go-round of copying and diminished credibility]. One's "primitive'' you see [objective criterion].
[2]Invent a hypothetical unknown unattested common document...call it Q...that's catchy.
Define it as that material common to gospels 2 and 3 that is NOT based on g"Mark".
Bingo..problem solvered.

Whoops, there is material that is common to gospels 2 and 3 that IS based on g"Mark".

Now that ruins the Q definition.

No worries....change the definition to include "Mark/Q'' overlaps...shades of the phlogiston band aids before that theory was abandoned.

When you have to jury rig a theory to attempt to explain "unfortunate" facts , the theory is in trouble.

No worries soldier on regardless.

Q has no narrative? Right? That's what I read when I first came upon it.

Well, hang on, some bits do suggest a narrative compoment...the intros and ends of the sermon on the flat hill stuff for example.
That's OK, just hypothesize DIFFERENT Qs.....Q!..Q2...as many as required by a theory in deep strife....more band-aids.

I'm waiting for Qists to note that there is the word "and" which is common to all gospels and is probably derived from an "AND" tradition/source, from an "AND" community, located in a place that liked the concept of "AND" cos JC undoubtedly used it in a soteriological sense to denote.....whatever.

Sorry about the flippant tone but I think the Q theory is just TOO convenient...if it hadn't been invented it would have been necessary to invent it.

Vinnie

Q is an attmpted solution of the double tradition material. Many scholars do see it as necessary to introduce Q to explain the data. Even those who dismiss "Q" are still stuck with Matthew using sayings sources---which is what Q happens to be.

Vinnie

Vinnie

But how strong is that argument to begin with?

P1 Mark would not have omitted the sermon on the mount if it was before him.
P2 THere is triple tradition material with double tradition agreements against Mark.
p3: THus, if Q explains the two source theory there are Mark // Q overlapps.
P4 There are significant verbatim agreements between Mark and Q.
p5. Literary dependence must be posited between Mark and Q.

But how can Mark know Q? (se p1) Is this then an arguiment against q?

But I don't want to oversimplify. There are a few options. Either Mark knew Q (dismissed above) or Q knew Mark (still open) or Mark knew a primitive form of Q that later underwent significant expansion. Or the agreements of Luke and Matthew against Mark are to be explained by a relationship between these two texts.

So which one, if any, would you suggest?

Mark knew of a proto-Q.
Q knew Mark.
There was no Q.

What, in your estimation, is the strongest?

Vinnie

yalla

Vinnie "Q is an attmpted solution of the double tradition material."

No, it's an apologetic device to smokescreen an unattractive valid alternative.

That one of gospels writers 2 and 3 copied the other, as well as both copying "Mark", was ignored by you in your OP as a possibility.

Establish Q first before presuming it.

That the writers used "oral tradition/sources eg Q, "Signs", "Miracles", and you are now adding "sayings", avoids the unpleasant suggestion that they primarily used the Tanakh and literary "creativity" [aka fiction] for their stories.
The Q hypothesis is not set in concrete as fact. Many are sceptical concerning it, Yuri and Vork [in fact I think I may have got the ''invention" phrase from a post elsewhere by him] here and Goodacre, Goulder and Drury to name 3 published authors.

And I prefer the term ''flippant''.

Chris Weimer

yalla - I think I smell an ad hominem by implication there. You're calling Q an apolegtic smokescreen, would that make the Q-camp apologists? If so, you've some nerve. How about instead of bashing something, why don't you actually diffuse it? There are many scholars out there who still support Q, and I'd bet that very few are fundamentalist apologists. In fact, many apologists dislike Q altogether!

Plus, you introduce a false dichotomy here, that the Q, Signs, Miracles (aren't these one and the same?) and "sayings" get rid of the use of the Tanakh and literary fabrication. You're correct, Q isn't proven, but in this field, nothing is proven. To think of such a thing would be near absurd.

yalla

Chris Weimar
What I object to is the constant repitition of Q without verification.
I constantly read that Matthew and Luke used Q and the alternative, one copied the other, is rarely mentioned or dismissed in a brief sentence.
It's the Q as a "juggernaut" scenario.
And it's the scholars who have more of my respect than the fundies, who use this.
Mack and Funk for example.
The fundies just repeat the old tradition that they are Matthew and Luke, a la patristic tradition etc..

And the dichotomy is not mine..or at least I don't see it.
Using sub-sets of a block of material as discrete units with a separate provenance that tends to advance credibility of gospel material as going back to the "authentic voice of Jesus himself'' without justifying their separate histories is what I object to.

Look try this example as a political technique. It's not Q but it shows the same approach. I was reading this last night...from "St. Luke'' G.B.Caird, Pelican. pp.20-21.
He is commenting on the "remarkable affinities" between Luke and John and lists 10 areas of unique elements common only to these 2 gospels [2 other Judases, Lazarus, Peter and fish miracle etc]. Immediately after the list his only sentence that comments on this is.."The unavoidable inference is that Luke and John were relying on two allied steams of oral tradition". End of section.
Nothing about the possibility that one may be dependent on the other.
I consider that misleading.
I call that apologetics.

I see that approach frequently.

Surely you have read this sort of thing numerous times including in reputable scholars?

I think that between them, Farrer, Goulder and Goodacre have put a bloody great dent in the Q juggernaut but I do not see their arguments presented in detail very often when Q comes up. Instead I see the presumption that Q existed and away we go on that presumption.

Mr.Weimar sir, I respect your opinion and if you say I'm using ad hom, being cheeky etc I'll pay attention. But I'm hoping the above may serve to partly at least justify my flippancy.
And I have, at least twice previously in this forum given details as to why I reject Q.
So there [poking tongue icon].

Edited to add:

Signs Gospel...part of the gospel of "John''
Miracle Stories...Mack p.65..."2 sets of 5 miracle stories that had their home in a pre-Markan movement".
Q...as in Q

Yuri Kuchinsky

I agree, Yalla.

Yes, this 'liberal orthodoxy' is just as dishonest as anything coming from the fundies.

Me too!

Again, I agree.

There's obvious inter-dependence between all 4 canonical gospels. They are 4 peas in a pod -- they have been edited together and harmonised for a long time after being assembled into a canon.

Some of their mutual agreements go back to the earliest proto-gospel. And many others are the result of later editing.

At this time, real Synoptic scholarship is still in its infancy. All the major accepted theories are just childish approximations of what really went on.

Cheers,

Yuri.