Casper

I admit, I am one of the two, but I just have to go with my gut (admittedly, what I desire to be true).

Marcion published an Ur-Marcus that became source material, along with the teachings of Paul, and Marcion, as the persona of Paul, became "Christ". This source material became the basis of all three. Marcion's Paul is "Q". Matthew Judaized an early version, Luke co-opted a later canon. So Matthew knew gLuke, or at least gproto-Luke

Okay, shoot me down, but please do so in a manner that I can learn from. Google terms and threadfinders welcome.

Nazaroo

Mark-Luke


Luke-Matthew



The serious work on the correspondences between the Synoptics was done almost a hundred years before Streeter:

Davidson lists 58 whole blocks of text which Luke and Matt share with Mark, and which we can assume Matthew had access to, enabling him to work independantly from Luke whenever he wished. This of course cannot negate Matthew's awareness of Luke.


Davidson also lists 32 whole blocks of text which Matthew and Luke share alone, against (or in absence of) Mark.

Luke __________ Matthew
====================
4:3-13..............4:3-11
6:20-23............5:1-12
6:27-36............5:39-48
16:17...............5:18
12:58-59...........5:25-26
11:1-4..............6:7-13
12:33-34...........6:19-21
11:34-36...........6:22-23
16:13...............6:24
12:22-31..........6:25-33

6:37,38,41,42,31,44-49 ......7:1,2,3-5,12,16-20,24-27

7:1-10..............8:5-13
9:57-60............8:19-22
10:2................9:37-38
10:5-6.............10:12-13
10:12...............10:15
10:3.................10:16
12:11-12...........10:19-20
6:40.................10:24
12:2-9..............10:26-33
12:51-53...........10:34-35
7:18-35.............11:2-19
10:13-15...........11:21-23
10:21-22...........11:25-27
11:14................12:23
11:16,29-31.......12:38-42
11:24-26...........12:43-45
13:20-21...........13:33
15:4-7..............18:12-14
13:34-35...........23:37-39
12:42-48...........24:45-51
19:11-28...........25:14-30

Of this long list, how much can really be accounted for by 'Q'?
What is the best list of Q that scholars have been able to compile?

--------------------------------------------------------------
As an example, James Tabor gives his list of Q according to Luke:

3:7-9,16b-17 .............John Baptist material
4:2b-12.....................Temptation

6:20-23.....................Sermon on Plain
6:27-37
6:37-42
6:43-45
6:47-49

7:2-3,6-10................Centurion's Servant Healed
7:18-23.....................John Baptist material
7:24-35.....................JB, Pharisees and Lawyers
9:57-62.....................Cost of Discipleship

10:2-12.....................Sending of the Seventy
10:13-15...................Woes to those who reject them
10:21-22...................Seventy Return
10:23-24...................Jesus rejoices

11:2-4......................The Lord's Prayer
11:9-13....................Asking, Seeking, Knocking

11:14-21...................Baalzebub
11:24-26...................Parable of returning Demon
11:29b-32.................Sign of Jonah
11:33-36..................Parable of Unhidden Lamp
11:39-40,42-43.........Hypocrisy and 3 Woes to Pharisees
11:46-52..................3 Woes to Lawyers (blood of prophets)
12:2-3....................(Beware the Leaven) All will be uncovered
12:4-5....................Fear hellfire, not death

12:6-7....................more than many sparrows
12:8-10..................Confess Christ before men
12:11-12.................Persecution in synagogues, Holy Spirit
12:22-31.................forget food/clothing - (the lillies)
12:33-34.................give alms, get treasure in heaven
12:39-40................Be ready for unexpected visit of Son of Man
12:42-46................Parable of the Unjust Steward
12:51-53................Not Peace, but Division!
12:57-59................judge with compassion
13:20-21................Parable of Leavened Bread
13:24.....................The Narrow Gate
13:25-29................Enter before the Door is Closed
13:34-35................Lamentation over Jerusalem
14:5......................Ox and Pit on Sabbath
14:16-23................Parable of the Great Supper
14:26-27................Hating your family, bearing your cross
14:34-35................Parable of Salt losing flavour
15:4-10.................Parable of Lost Sheep, Lost Coin

16:13....................Serving Two Masters
16:16....................The Law and Prophets were until John
16:17....................The Law cannot fail
17:1......................Woe to the person causing offences
17:3-4...................Forgive Seven Times
17:5-6...................Faith of a Mustard Seed
17:23-37................Coming of the Son of Man, Noah, Sodom
19:12-13,15-26.......Parable of Ten Talents
22:28-30................Twelve Thrones for the Twelve

I have added the descriptions/titles, to put a face on these text-blocks.




So here is some meat to look at.

spin

No need. The problem is your notion block-copying, as in from Mark or variants of Mark. Of course it's no such thing, but do I need to stick some of the Greek up so you can see that the texts can be quite different? There is a redaction process going on rather than a scribal copying process. It might be true that Matt's redactor was more inclined to work on the text beyond improving its communicability. But both redactors were modifying their sources as they wrote.

In a previous post I asked the following:

you attribute stuff to Matthew changing Luke when an easier explanation is that Matt simply used his Marcan source in some of the various cases you have cited. Obviously the writers have their own interests and you may even be right in specifying some of them, however your conclusions from the data seem to be more contrived than the simpler notion of each adapting their source materials differently and there be no sign that the writer(s) of Matt knew Luke. (This of course doesn't mean that there was no later cross-fertilization from one gospel to another at a scribal/editorial level.) Matt puts its own slant on the source material while Luke puts its different slant on it. How would the data present itself differently after such a process from the process you advocate?

This question I was hoping you'd respond to.


spin

Nazaroo

First of all, Matthew would not duplicate a lot of material found in Luke.

By this I refer to material that cannot be a part of any early 'Q' document, but rather reflects later church history and interpretation.

If Matthew were the 'early' independant document that those holding Matthean priority claim, it would not have these elements, and more importantly, it would not have the same set as Luke does.

The consequences of Matthean priority in every credible incarnation so far proposed, is that its elements are seen as primitive, not later church accretions.

If we pose that Matthew was 'first', but only in the sense of being slightly earlier than Luke, then two things happen.

(1) We lose any reason for caring who was first, and we fail to distinguish any reason for the differences we do find between them.

(2) The only document remaining is Mark, (since most also hold John as late), and possibly the reconstructed 'Q'.

But when we turn to look at the Q that must be proposed to account for the Luke/Matt material, we see that it is a heterogenous mix of very early and very late material that would not have been rationally gathered into a single document. There is no 'Q'.


Not at all. I am quite well aware of the differences in style at the word-level (i.e., the changes in literary expression that Luke and even Matthew make to Mark to make it readable).

I am not debating that. By 'block-copying' I am talking at the pericope-level, where the actual building-blocks of Mark are not neglected, or broken up, or placed out of order (except in the less than a half-dozen exceptions noted). Out of about 100 blocks of Markan text, Luke only drops the 9 consecutive blocks (Mark 6:45-8:26) as well as the 'Fig Tree' interpolation, the superfluous 'Plot to Kill Jesus' (interpolated from John) and the 'Young man flees naked' (inappropriate material). Other variants are minor (the four dislocations: calling of the apostles,Mk 1:16f, Rejection at Nazareth 6:1f, the 'Right Hand' anecdote 10:35f, the Annointing [rewritten cf.Lk 7:36f/8:1f])

When we look at the other 85 'blocks' of text, they are found copied in even larger blocks:

Mk 1:21-39...........Lk 4:31-44

Mk 1:40-3:19........Lk 5:12-6:16

Mk 4:1-5:43..........Lk 8:4-56

Mk 6:14-44...........Lk 9:7-17

Mk 8:27-9:41........Lk 9:18-50

Mk 9:42-50...........Lk 9:57-62

Mk 10:13-10:34.....Lk 18:18-33

Mk 10:46-11:11.....Lk 18:35-19:40 (ignoring Lukan insertion of Zacchaus etc.)

Mk 11:15-13:37.....Lk 19:45-21:38

Luke reworks and blends the Markan passion with other information, but again includes almost everything.

Finally, Luke copies the last block of Mark:

Mk 15:16-end......Lk 23:32-24:53 (in Luke's words with additional lore)

These are huge blocks of text, copied (and reworded) with 90%+ duplication of essential content, kept in identical order, and even kept close together. (contrast this with Matthew, who chops things to pieces in order to rebuild large oratories for public reading in church services.)

Here's some Greek to work with. The Healing of the Paralytic at Capernaum etc..

I hope I don't have to highlight portions that indicate some blatant copying, as well as extensive editorial activity.






(from Davidson, ibid, 1848)

spin

I would need some substantive examples of this sort of material. As it is it's too abstract.

I don't maintain Matthean priority, so I can happily accept such accretions, which will cloud the issue and put your argumentation into confusion.

As we have seen with the LXX the tradition is worked on over centuries and less MT forms migrate towards the MT. That's why Alexandrinus seems closer to MT than Vaticanus -- it has been made that way. Texts do get worked on over time, so later accretions are a strong probability.

It is the case for me that I have little interest in which of the two was first, but that's because I can't see one dependent on the other at the moment.

(2) The only document remaining is Mark, (since most also hold John as late), and possibly the reconstructed 'Q'.

But when we turn to look at the Q that must be proposed to account for the Luke/Matt material, we see that it is a heterogenous mix of very early and very late material that would not have been rationally gathered into a single document. There is no 'Q'.[/quote]
Again you are happy here to ignore later accretions. And apparently you are happy to assume the gospels were written nice and early. If you thought Q could be dismissed so easily you should publish your opinions, but I don't think you've touched sufficiently on the subject to explain the problems as insurmountable and rule its existence out.

You have not really answered my question other than to assert that Matthew "would not have these elements" that reflect "later church history and interpretation", whatever "these elements" really are.

I am aware of what you intended. However, when talking about block-copying, you are saying something other than you might really want to say. Your half-baked exaggerations aside (for I don't see that Matt has moved that much more than Luke around), each redactor in rewriting at a phrase level was just doing what earlier and later scholars had done. I pointed out Josephus's use of 1 Maccabees and Chronicles' use of Sam/Kings as the tradition our redactors belonged to: they stuck to their texts more or less consistently, as our two gospel redactors did. But none of them were slavish to their sources and if you look at the Greek texts you supplied there is very little word for word blocks.

The blocks are narrative blocks. Talking of "block-copying" is inappropriate. There was no copying in the normally understood sense. Try "block-reworking" or "block-content-reusing". That might help you get over the call-a-spade-a-shovel syndrome, with all its entailed errors.

I told you about Mk 3:31-35 before:

if you note Mk 3:31-35 which should have preceded Lk 8:4 is now at 8:19.

This is the "true kindred" passage. It's been moved in Luke.

Yes, as you point out everything except materials that you claim were either not there or superfluous.

The faithfulness of Luke is not exceptionally more than that of Matthew. I think you have blown the difference in adherence way out of hand.

That's a little inaccurate. Mk 15:16-20, the mocking, isn't there in the Lucan passage, though it is preserved in situ in Matt 27:27ff. Luke now has it transformed and moved to before the interview before the high priests, 22:63-65.

Matt doesn't chop Mark "to pieces in order to rebuild large oratories". Matt is relatively faithful to Mark.

And what other "large oratories" are there beside the sermon on the mount that stretch over several pericopes?

What's blatant about the reuse of these passages, when such reuse was standard fare for the times? And why do you use these inappropriate terms that shape your approach to the material preventing a more evenhanded vision of the material?


spin

Nazaroo

Lets organize the arguments, and then perhaps you can see a bit more clearly what we are *both* saying:

(1) It is admitted that the practice of both Luke and Matthew has been to use other written documents as sources, e.g. Mark. Besides the copious near-verbatum phrases and sentences, you have the fact that some 90% of Mark is reproduced by both Luke and Matthew. Finally, at least one of the author/editors, Luke admits as much (plural sources) in the first few sentences of his gospel. Even though Matthew doesn't overtly state it, few would contest it.

(2) Ignoring the complimentary Nativity sections for the moment, (which are a unique feature common to Luke and Matthew alone as well,) most of the non-Markan material found in Luke is also found in Matthew, and it is a huge amount of material! Hence 'Q'.

(3) Whatever is meant by 'independantly wrote', it can't mean that neither author had any knowledge of at least the basic plan of the other. They are both the same length, reproduce 80-90% of the same material (excepting the nativity sections), are plainly 'gospels of a unique type' and the major differences between them consist of mere rearrangements of the material, a modest number of supplimentary and substitutionary sections, and literary style.

(4) There is also a difficulty in explaining their remarkable similarities if we are too extreme about insisting on their relative 'independance'. They have independant styles of writing to be sure, and independant apologetic purposes, but even these overlap significantly. They are both telling the same 'gospel', using the same source material, and even the same format.

(5) While they could easily maintain this kind of literary independance if each had their personal axes to grind, and felt authorized to suppliment and correct one another, and yet be fully familiar with each other's work (at least in one direction), the opposite scenario is artificially strained. How could they have this much similarity, without one at least giving the other a backhanded compliment through imitation in general plan, and also specific material? How could they both be near-contemporaries in a fledgling religious movement, duplicate one another to such an exent, have recognition in the early church, without at least one being aware of the other's work?

(6) The overlapping and unique material is extensive and significant, and needs proper accounting. The 'Q' hypothesis was originally invented for apologetic purposes. That is, Christian scholars of the last two centuries were concerned to avoid finding any evangelist guilty of a lack of creativity or charges of 'copying'. Why? Because then the gospels would not be on an equal footing, and the doctrine of Divine Inspiration would be in jeopardy. This means we have to look carefully and skeptically at the work supporting the 'Q' hypothesis. Bias must be suspected and tested, or the 'Q' theory will remain doubtful.

(7) As it turns out, the 'Q' theory is inadequate to fully account for the facts. Furthermore, it has serious drawbacks on its own ground. Even with the support of general statements like Luke's (i.e. multiple written[?] sources), it is unclear in its extent and nature. There is a residue of phenomenae that are not accounted for by positing 'Q'.

(8) Many of the specific differences between Luke and Matthew can be accounted for in a straightforward manner, if we admit that Matthew was working with Luke. In this case, Matthew rearranges and gathers sayings of Jesus topically and in larger bundles, making them easier to treat as units. This is easily understood as benign organizing activity. Matthew tones down or avoids controversial or problematic passages, making the public reading of the gospel safer, and 'authority friendly'. Matthew blends and syncretizes competing elements and themes in earlier Christian work, such as Pauline and Jamesian strains of doctrine on 'works'. Finally, Matthew enhances Jesus' image from the Jewish viewpoint, by making him into a Moses-figure not hostile to Jewish legal tradition.

(9) Attempting to go in the opposite direction is extremely problematic and implausible. Why would Luke pull to pieces the Sermon on the Mount, and sprinkle the bits, leaving them isolated and often contextless, or invent new fictional contexts for them? This would make Jesus a gnostic mystic, even though Matthew presents him as the prophecied 'Lawgiver'. Why would Luke invent a social gospel and work it everywhere into Matthew? This would make the two real enemies. Why would Luke insert risky and dangerous stories and doctrines, which could only antagonize both Roman and Jewish authorities? Is he sabotaging Christianity or trying to get Christians killed? Why would Luke UN-synchretize Matthew's blend of Pauline and Jamesian doctrine? Does he want to split the church in two? And why does he reject James? If we make Luke last in the chain of dependance, we have insurmountable difficulties in plausibility. Thus we have a 'strong' one-way trap door, a time or dependance-flag.

(10) If Matthean dependance upon Luke can make a decent account of both similarities and important differences between them, the 'Q' hypothesis become largely superfluous, at least in its grandest incarnation. There may indeed by other documents which were used by both Luke and Matthew, accounting for some early material. But the main part of the striking differences can best be accounted for by Matthew's (the church's) need for a 'public gospel' that would harmonize the main competing doctrinal strains like Paul and James, that would remove dangerous and ambiguous teachings that would encourage zealots and provoke authorities, and that would lighten the burden of the Social Gospel.

That either Matthew or Luke had some significant knowledge of the other's work seems unavoidable. That they were 'independant' editors in regards to literary style, and personal agendas is granted. But that one largely used the other as a template, but modified it for important practical purposes, also seems difficult to miss.

What can 'Q' offer in place of a coherent history of the early composition of the gospels?

Toto

Nazaroo - I don't see how you can claim that Q was invented for apologetic purposes. Most of the apologists who come here tend to be critical of the idea, especially the idea of layers of Q.

But there is a lot of non-apologetic criticism of the concept of Q. Are you familiar with Mark Goodacre's Case Against Q? In particular his article Fatigue in the SYnoptics argues on purely literary grounds that the author of Luke knew Matthew.

Nazaroo

I think your reasoning here is non-sequitous. The idea of 'Q' (Germany, 1800s) and the ideological climate of that period has nothing to do with modern opinions from the 'post-Christian' era.

Q was certainly invented by Catholic scholars for apologetic reasons. How modern researchers approach it now is irrelevant to the historical question of what need it was serving at that time.


Of course I am quite familiar with Goodacre's online work.

His critique of Q however is completely independant of the question of the direction of dependance between Matthew and Luke.

That Goodacre may choose to argue for Matthaen priority is his own sidebar issue. I think you'll find his arguments for Lukan dependance are a lot weaker than his general argument against Q. In fact, he doesn't need Lukan dependance at all to refute Q.

In any case, the outlined argument (above) for Lukan priority and Matthaen dependance appears to me to be a hell of a lot stronger than Goodacre's sketch of the reverse.

S.C.Carlson

OK, I'll bite. Which Catholic invented Q?

Stephen

JoeWallack

JW:
The IlluMetzger




Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page