Amaleq13

I spotted you as a trouble-maker from the beginning.

yalla

I don't have a ready source for books on Christianity so when I can read a borrowed book I make detailed notes on it.That's what I did for Goulder's "Midrash and Lection in Matthew".And then I lost my notes when I shifted house.And I can't find that book again.Bugger.So that which follows is from my [shonky] memory.I seem to recall M.G. making the case that writers have distinctive styles and thus have a literary identity or personality.He, M.G., makes the case that "Matthew" has such a style."M" [Matthew] uses rural imagery/ metaphors frequently [foxes have holes etc].It's M.G.'s thesis that"M" is a village rabbi/scribe /teacher type person."Luke" ["L"], on the other hand is an urban cosmopolitan sophisticate with a quite different literary style.
M.G. analyses, with examples,the literary styles of 3 sections.
1."M" i.e not Markan based
2."L" i.e. not Markan based
3."M and L", otherwise known as Q.[But not so for M.G.]
He claims that the style of the imagery etc used in "M" is different to that of "L".
He claims that the imagery used in "M and L" is that of "M".That is, to put it another way,"L" uses the style of "M" in the alleged Q sections.Or, to be blunt "L" copied "M".There was no Q.
It was all done very precisely and mathematically.I remember feeling a little snowed under.But it was convincing.After that Q became a mere Christian apologia device as far as I was concerned.Please note: this is as I remember it..my recall would have to be confirmed.But IF my memory is accurate and my synopsis is valid I submit that M.G. makes a powerful case against the existence of Q.
Can anyone confirm/deny the above? Comments anyone?

Julian

The entire census argument makes little sense under Herod. Although his kingdom was subject to taxation such work was done by tax farmers. Herod would have been unlikely to turn his kingdom upside down for some sort of accurate count. He also would not have moved all his citizens around. I suspect that there is some reason why the nativity had to be during a census, a reason now lost to us. I looked at Carlson's arguments but my greek is still too weak to comment much upon it. Either way, the reading looks clear to me as I have outlined it earlier. Much can be said about how unlikely the census were as well as its execution but you all know the arguments..
I agree that it is not much of an argument, however, it rubs me the wrong way. While hardly conclusive or even weighty it is yet another small pebble on the load. Circumstantial but they add up...
That argument was in response to Carlson's near-mathematical reasoning for plagiarism in an earlier post. While the evidence cannot be disregarded, and shouldn't, it does lose some strength when we know that we are not looking at the actual text. When reading for content this may not be all that significant but when we nitpick over the selection of individual words that significance increases. Not sure how much but there it is...

Julian

P.S. Peter, it is somewhat complicated following this discussion in three separate places (JM, Ebla, II), you are cluttering my desktop.

andrewcriddle

I agree that the Caesarean text is unlikely to be original here.

However, if the original text of Mark is that found in D (Codex Bezae) then IMHO the remaining agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark here, although interesting are not conclusive.

Andrew Criddle