Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 01-25-2010, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

but, heaven help me, I'm not about rejecting Q on that basis! I am rejecting the notion of Q because the gospel storyline does not need it.

100%, if one cannot read the Gospel for what it says, don't read it.

. . . a man with one watch knows what time it is
a man with two watches never knows for sure.

gdeering · 01-25-2010, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tradewinds

If Mark is considered the earliest work, then Q was discovered afterward. Now Mathew was a follower of Peter and Luke, of Paul. Therefore, each would use Q differently. Peter would favor the Jews, while Paul to Gentiles. They are all synoptic gospels. John which is not, is thought to be the last written. If this idea is not true, there could be implications for the lost Q source.

I think that Paul should be stricken from your list. If there was a Q in Paul's time (when ever it was) - he made no use of it. It would have helped the HJ case immensely if he had. Paul has little interest in Jesus' life or sayings.

Gregg

Chili · 01-25-2010, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdeering

Paul has little interest in Jesus' life or sayings.

Gregg

And rightfully so if he speaks from first hand knowledge and actually was at the Cana event where all was made clear.

For Paul there was no argument and his MJ position will flush the HJ punch bowl every time but the problem is that they must cling to it until awakening sets them free and that is not his to give -- and rightfully so or he would be the devil in the temptation parable that is just opposite to the Cana event where it is revealed.

Chaucer · 01-25-2010, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaryHelena

I am rejecting the notion of Q because the gospel storyline does not need it.

The "Q material" is by definition material shared by Matthew and Luke which Mark (who preceded them) does not have.

If there was no Q to explain that shared material, is it your position that Matthew simply invented all the verses otherwise assigned to Q?

And are you aware of the particular problems which such a position creates?

Earl Doherty

Personally, for the sake of argument, I would guess it's always possible that sayings as radical as those in so-called "Q" _may_ have originated in a mind of a writer, such as the author of Matthew, instead. Possible, but perhaps not likely, are you implying? I admit I'm not clear where you're going here.

As I understand it, going by articles you have now published on the web and elsewhere, you do feel it likely that these sayings were made up for a story, in any case, rather than coming from an historical Jesus, right? So if we use that as an ongoing hypothesis, is there something awkward, as you see it, in such sayings being concocted by an author of Matthew (whoever that may be) rather than an author of Q? Ultimately, if we take the so-called "Q" sayings as concocted and not historical to begin with, why is there any greater difficulty in viewing them as the work of a Matthew author rather than a "Q" author?

Another consideration that others in this thread have pointed to as well: yes, it's possible that certain interpretations of the textual data may be biased by a priori assumptions -- on either side of the fence -- that ultimately shape conclusions -- conclusions that, in some cases, may have been the same without even evaluating the data at all, the bias being so strong! That is regrettable, but possible.

Such being the case, there is some method, I feel, in my (possible) madness for scrutinizing especially closely those analyses that _may_ be of a sort where no bias, or relatively little, can creep in: statistical analysis of the original Greek referenced earlier. Since we are all human, inadvertent biases may even creep in here too. But the biases would have a harder road to travel here, in my view. And that can only be to the good.

I am consequently still interested in any counter arguments that could be made, please, to this one statistical analysis that's out there seeming to show that a number of "Q" passages that do remain identical in both Matthew and Luke still bear certain striking "fingerprints" of the Matthew style. --

http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main

-- A surprising conclusion, yes, but this is what a seemingly dry mathematical and statistical analysis seems to suggest. The conclusion, then, that the author of Matthew is either the first compiler or the direct author of the "Q" sayings would seem plausible. Or could there be another explanation?

Thanks,

Chaucer

youngalexander · 01-25-2010, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

I am consequently still interested in any counter arguments that could be made, please, to this one statistical analysis that's out there seeming to show that a number of "Q" passages that do remain identical in both Matthew and Luke still bear certain striking "fingerprints" of the Matthew style. --

http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main

-- A surprising conclusion, yes, but this is what a seemingly dry mathematical and statistical analysis seems to suggest. The conclusion, then, that the author of Matthew is either the first compiler or the direct author of the "Q" sayings would seem plausible. Or could there be another explanation?

The linked stats analysis is very interesting, but one would need to give it considerable attention before being confident of methodology etc. The author gives a detailed set of interpretations. With regard to your question he states that

there are other similar explanations that fit the results of the study equally well. For example Luke could have had some of Matthew, perhaps from a letter, and some Matthian material later made its way over to Luke. In this view, Matthew used a version of Mark and a sayings source. The source was probably smaller that the standard Q, and could have been an oral rather than a written source. Luke also used a version of Mark and a sayings source, oral or written, and some material from Matthew, possibly from a personal letter. Then, some Matthian material also made its way into Luke at a later date.

Another idea that I currently find interesting, is that Luke did indeed use Mark, Matthew and a saying source, but the saying source, and the gospel of Matthew had the same author and were contemporary with the gospel of Luke...

So that your query is rather an afterthort in his deliberations.

The main points to emerge from the study seem to be:
1. That a 3SH (3 source hyp.) is most likely, the FH (Farrer hyp.) has 'much support' and the 2SH cannot be ruled out.

2. "solutions that do not involve Markian priority are vitually eliminated empericlly (sic)"

3. "these results make it more difficult to argue that Luke did not use Matthew at all."

It is a pity that 1. indicates the lack of discrimination of such a statistical procedure, reflecting no doubt the relative lack of data. Markian priority seems to be the firmest conclusion, but is hardly revolutionary. As the author notes, there are numerous possible mechanisms for Luke containing (parts of) Mat.

However, the study tells us that the minor agreements (212), are clearly Matthian in style, and that there is no clear distinction between sondergut Matthew (200), and material that is clearly Q, on the 2SH (202). The combination of these 2 results should make us suspect, that perhaps Luke did use Matthew.

Still, I agree, the suspicion appears to be warranted.

maryhelena · 01-25-2010, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

The "Q material" is by definition material shared by Matthew and Luke which Mark (who preceded them) does not have.

If there was no Q to explain that shared material, is it your position that Matthew simply invented all the verses otherwise assigned to Q?

And are you aware of the particular problems which such a position creates?

Earl Doherty

Personally, for the sake of argument, I would guess it's always possible that sayings as radical as those in so-called "Q" _may_ have originated in a mind of a writer, such as the author of Matthew, instead. Possible, but perhaps not likely, are you implying? I admit I'm not clear where you're going here.

As I understand it, going by articles you have now published on the web and elsewhere, you do feel it likely that these sayings were made up for a story, in any case, rather than coming from an historical Jesus, right? So if we use that as an ongoing hypothesis, is there something awkward, as you see it, in such sayings being concocted by an author of Matthew (whoever that may be) rather than an author of Q? Ultimately, if we take the so-called "Q" sayings as concocted and not historical to begin with, why is there any greater difficulty in viewing them as the work of a Matthew author rather than a "Q" author?

Another consideration that others in this thread have pointed to as well: yes, it's possible that certain interpretations of the textual data may be biased by a priori assumptions -- on either side of the fence -- that ultimately shape conclusions -- conclusions that, in some cases, may have been the same without even evaluating the data at all, the bias being so strong! That is regrettable, but possible.

Such being the case, there is some method, I feel, in my (possible) madness for scrutinizing especially closely those analyses that _may_ be of a sort where no bias, or relatively little, can creep in: statistical analysis of the original Greek referenced earlier. Since we are all human, inadvertent biases may even creep in here too. But the biases would have a harder road to travel here, in my view. And that can only be to the good.

I am consequently still interested in any counter arguments that could be made, please, to this one statistical analysis that's out there seeming to show that a number of "Q" passages that do remain identical in both Matthew and Luke still bear certain striking "fingerprints" of the Matthew style. --

http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main

-- A surprising conclusion, yes, but this is what a seemingly dry mathematical and statistical analysis seems to suggest. The conclusion, then, that the author of Matthew is either the first compiler or the direct author of the "Q" sayings would seem plausible. Or could there be another explanation?

Thanks,

Chaucer

Another explaination? OK - if there are 'fingerprints' of Matthew all over the 'sayings' source - that would seem to eliminate the need for Q entirely...and would be clear indication that Luke knew the gospel of Matthew...

And as for any Q sayings that Luke might have that are not in Matthew - the usual reason given for Q i.e. a common source - perhaps the source common to both the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of Luke is.............the writer of the gospel of Luke!

Now that idea would surely set the cat among the pigeons...

The gospel of Matthew would then amount to an earlier work by the same writer as the much later gospel of Luke (with help along the way by various interested parties...). This idea would be in line with what generally goes on with writers involved in the transmission of ideas - ideas develop over time and ones earlier work is most often supplemented by ones mature ideas.

The gospel of Mark, a much earlier gospel, containing the template of the Jesus story - probably from a more original mind - perhaps a more philosophical mind. 'Matthew' adds a prophetic line - and 'Luke' follows along by adding a heavy dose of number symbolism.

Yep, open season once Q hits the dustbin of history...

EarlDoherty · 01-25-2010, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

As I understand it, going by articles you have now published on the web and elsewhere, you do feel it likely that these sayings were made up for a story, in any case, rather than coming from an historical Jesus, right? So if we use that as an ongoing hypothesis, is there something awkward, as you see it, in such sayings being concocted by an author of Matthew (whoever that may be) rather than an author of Q? Ultimately, if we take the so-called "Q" sayings as concocted and not historical to begin with, why is there any greater difficulty in viewing them as the work of a Matthew author rather than a "Q" author?

Good grief! Where did you get an idea like that? Certainly not from me. No one has ever said that Q was “made up” by some “author.” The situation is much more complex than that (as situations in this field usually are—Occam’s Razor is very much out of place here). Collections of sayings are very rarely put together out of whole cloth. They are collected over time, evolving as a community or series of communities develops its ethics and guidance principles. Sometimes they are modelled on collections from outside the sect or even outside the nation (as Israel borrowing and adapting wisdom collections from Egypt). Much of the earliest layer of Q shows clear identification with previous Cynic philosophy and practice. And we can trace indications in the evolution of Q that a founder figure was introduced only at a later stage in the sect’s development.

So there is no such “ongoing hypothesis” as you suggest. If you know so little about the basics of Q, why are you pronouncing on it (or against it)? This seems to go for a lot of people here.

As for the difficulties in seeing Matthew as the “author” of the sayings otherwise assigned to Q: I will patch in a few paragraphs from my book…

(7) There is a distinctive quality and content in the common material assigned to Q. Kloppenborg points to prominent themes and elements that shine out in Q as central concerns but which are not of significant interest in the rest of Matthew and Luke. And vice-versa: Matthean interests such as Jesus being observant and the fulfillment of Torah, or Jesus as messianic shepherd, do not play a role in Q. In other words, if the material in Matthew allotted to Q were actually his product, we would expect at least some of these dominant Matthean interests to appear in that material as well. As Kloppenborg puts it (p.225), “[Q] exhibits a thematic coherence that does not derive from Matthew’s redactional interests.”

But Kloppenborg has left out consideration of one very important dimension of Matthean (and Lukan) interest: the soteriological role of Jesus and his death and resurrection. It would have been a much more powerful example of Q’s distinctive quality had he pointed out that it contains nothing on these matters. For Matthew, in allegedly creating the material copied by Luke—otherwise to be allotted to Q—has managed to produce a large body of sayings and anecdotes which make no bow whatever to those essential concerns of all the Gospels. This observation was what turned many scholars off to the very idea of Q when it was first presented: how could there have been such a document that was devoid of any reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus, any allusion to his saving atonement and sacrificial role?

Today, we should bring the same objection to the claim that there was no Q. How could Matthew have managed to supply from his own invention a separate body of material which consistently exhibits that very void? (He would hardly have done it deliberately.) How could he create within that material, for example, a primary focus on the murder and ill-treatment of prophets sent from God and yet not include Jesus himself within that catalog? The objection that the Jesus of the story had not died yet falters on the pervasive use found in Matthew and Luke which they and Mark have made of Jesus’ own prophetic allusion to his fate (an invention of Mark as in 8:31, etc.), or through parables like the murder of the vineyard owner’s son (Mk. 12:1-9).

In other words, in the MwQ [Mark without Q] scenario, Matthew has miraculously created a subset of material which bears all the marks of a separate document with its own set of interests and characteristics, and one which entirely lacks the essential concerns of his own larger document into which he has fitted it….

(8) If no Q document existed and Matthew becomes the originator of the common material, two other problems are introduced.

The first is the difficulty in envisioning that someone of Matthew’s mentality could have originated many of the sayings assigned to Q. Matthew was a hidebound traditionalist who emphasized the saying placed in Jesus’ mouth that “not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law” (5:18). He was a fulminating prophet who painted a chilling, pitiless picture of the final judgment by the Son of Man, amid “wailing and grinding of teeth” (25:30-46). He penned the most heinous line in all of world fiction: “His blood be upon us and upon our children” (27:25). He was humorless, intolerant, virulently anti-Jewish—even if he was likely Jewish himself. Who can imagine that from his mind and pen could come: “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you…If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left…Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful”?

If there were no Q, we face a notable problem with the Gospel of Thomas. Those sayings in Thomas which are similar to the Q1 stratum would have no roots in the past but would instead have to be traced to Matthew. Yet too good a case has been made which rules out a dependence of Thomas on the Synoptic Gospels. (See Stephen J. Patterson: The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), p.9-16; J. D. Crossan, The Birth of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), p.117-118; H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk), p.84-85.)

If it is suggested that Matthew did not originate all this material, but drew it from some other source, then one has simply reinvented Q. The concept of Q is in any case much preferable to the idea that a small handful of evangelists were responsible for virtually all of the Gospel content, for it opens up much wider headwaters for understanding the great variety of ideas which flowed into Christianity and were eventually deposited in the Gospels. If it is acceptable to envision the Gospel of Mark as reflecting the ethos and traditions of a Q-style preaching movement based in Galilee, it is hardly a quantum leap to envision that ethos as embodied in a document which Mark himself happened not to possess (perhaps because it was not as far along in its evolution), but which later came into the hands of Matthew and Luke.

Quite clearly, I would very much have to disagree that there are “fingerprints of Matthew all over the sayings source”.

The Kingdom of God preaching movement covered considerable territory in the Levant, at least Galilee and southern Syria. It is quite feasible that the Q document, as a written version of the larger sect’s preaching activities, was the product of only one part of that territory, perhaps a relatively small group of centers. When Mark wrote, though being part of that larger movement he was a party to many Q-type oral traditions (though surprisingly few sayings recorded in Q), he had not encountered the written document itself, even though it would already have existed in one or more other centers. Somewhat later, Matthew and Luke, each operating in different areas and perhaps separated by one or more decades, possessed a Q document and decided to incorporate it into their own revisions of Mark. If the texts of Matthew and Luke indicate that their common material not shared with Mark bears a literary relationship, and yet the case that Luke used Matthew proves too weak and problematic, then one turns to scenarios in which this ‘hypothetical’ document can enter the picture and explain that common material. I and others have provided scenarios which do precisely that, creating far less difficulties and inconsistencies than the no-Q alternative.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena · 01-25-2010, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

As I understand it, going by articles you have now published on the web and elsewhere, you do feel it likely that these sayings were made up for a story, in any case, rather than coming from an historical Jesus, right? So if we use that as an ongoing hypothesis, is there something awkward, as you see it, in such sayings being concocted by an author of Matthew (whoever that may be) rather than an author of Q? Ultimately, if we take the so-called "Q" sayings as concocted and not historical to begin with, why is there any greater difficulty in viewing them as the work of a Matthew author rather than a "Q" author?

Good grief! Where did you get an idea like that? Certainly not from me. No one has ever said that Q was “made up” by some “author.” The situation is much more complex than that (as situations in this field usually are—Occam’s Razor is very much out of place here). Collections of sayings are very rarely put together out of whole cloth. They are collected over time, evolving as a community or series of communities develops its ethics and guidance principles. Sometimes they are modelled on collections from outside the sect or even outside the nation (as Israel borrowing and adapting wisdom collections from Egypt). Much of the earliest layer of Q shows clear identification with previous Cynic philosophy and practice. And we can trace indications in the evolution of Q that a founder figure was introduced only at a later stage in the sect’s development.

So there is no such “ongoing hypothesis” as you suggest. If you know so little about the basics of Q, why are you pronouncing on it (or against it)? This seems to go for a lot of people here.

As for the difficulties in seeing Matthew as the “author” of the sayings otherwise assigned to Q: I will patch in a few paragraphs from my book…

(7) There is a distinctive quality and content in the common material assigned to Q. Kloppenborg points to prominent themes and elements that shine out in Q as central concerns but which are not of significant interest in the rest of Matthew and Luke. And vice-versa: Matthean interests such as Jesus being observant and the fulfillment of Torah, or Jesus as messianic shepherd, do not play a role in Q. In other words, if the material in Matthew allotted to Q were actually his product, we would expect at least some of these dominant Matthean interests to appear in that material as well. As Kloppenborg puts it (p.225), “[Q] exhibits a thematic coherence that does not derive from Matthew’s redactional interests.”

But Kloppenborg has left out consideration of one very important dimension of Matthean (and Lukan) interest: the soteriological role of Jesus and his death and resurrection. It would have been a much more powerful example of Q’s distinctive quality had he pointed out that it contains nothing on these matters. For Matthew, in allegedly creating the material copied by Luke—otherwise to be allotted to Q—has managed to produce a large body of sayings and anecdotes which make no bow whatever to those essential concerns of all the Gospels. This observation was what turned many scholars off to the very idea of Q when it was first presented: how could there have been such a document that was devoid of any reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus, any allusion to his saving atonement and sacrificial role?

Today, we should bring the same objection to the claim that there was no Q. How could Matthew have managed to supply from his own invention a separate body of material which consistently exhibits that very void? (He would hardly have done it deliberately.) How could he create within that material, for example, a primary focus on the murder and ill-treatment of prophets sent from God and yet not include Jesus himself within that catalog? The objection that the Jesus of the story had not died yet falters on the pervasive use found in Matthew and Luke which they and Mark have made of Jesus’ own prophetic allusion to his fate (an invention of Mark as in 8:31, etc.), or through parables like the murder of the vineyard owner’s son (Mk. 12:1-9).

In other words, in the MwQ [Mark without Q] scenario, Matthew has miraculously created a subset of material which bears all the marks of a separate document with its own set of interests and characteristics, and one which entirely lacks the essential concerns of his own larger document into which he has fitted it….

(8) If no Q document existed and Matthew becomes the originator of the common material, two other problems are introduced.

The first is the difficulty in envisioning that someone of Matthew’s mentality could have originated many of the sayings assigned to Q. Matthew was a hidebound traditionalist who emphasized the saying placed in Jesus’ mouth that “not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law” (5:18). He was a fulminating prophet who painted a chilling, pitiless picture of the final judgment by the Son of Man, amid “wailing and grinding of teeth” (25:30-46). He penned the most heinous line in all of world fiction: “His blood be upon us and upon our children” (27:25). He was humorless, intolerant, virulently anti-Jewish—even if he was likely Jewish himself. Who can imagine that from his mind and pen could come: “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you…If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left…Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful”?

If there were no Q, we face a notable problem with the Gospel of Thomas. Those sayings in Thomas which are similar to the Q1 stratum would have no roots in the past but would instead have to be traced to Matthew. Yet too good a case has been made which rules out a dependence of Thomas on the Synoptic Gospels. (See Stephen J. Patterson: The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, p.9-16; J. D. Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, p.117-118; H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p.84-85.)

If it is suggested that Matthew did not originate all this material, but drew it from some other source, then one has simply reinvented Q. The concept of Q is in any case much preferable to the idea that a small handful of evangelists were responsible for virtually all of the Gospel content, for it opens up much wider headwaters for understanding the great variety of ideas which flowed into Christianity and were eventually deposited in the Gospels. If it is acceptable to envision the Gospel of Mark as reflecting the ethos and traditions of a Q-style preaching movement based in Galilee, it is hardly a quantum leap to envision that ethos as embodied in a document which Mark himself happened not to possess (perhaps because it was not as far along in its evolution), but which later came into the hands of Matthew and Luke.

Quite clearly, I would very much have to disagree that there are “fingerprints of Matthew all over the sayings source”.

The Kingdom of God preaching movement covered considerable territory in the Levant, at least Galilee and southern Syria. It is quite feasible that the Q document, as a written version of the larger sect’s preaching activities, was the product of only one part of that territory, perhaps a relatively small group of centers. When Mark wrote, though being part of that larger movement he was a party to many Q-type oral traditions (though surprisingly few sayings recorded in Q), he had not encountered the written document itself, even though it would already have existed in one or more other centers. Somewhat later, Matthew and Luke, each operating in different areas and perhaps separated by one or more decades, possessed a Q document and decided to incorporate it into their own revisions of Mark. If the texts of Matthew and Luke indicate that their common material not shared with Mark bears a literary relationship, and yet the case that Luke used Matthew proves too weak and problematic, then one turns to scenarios in which this ‘hypothetical’ document can enter the picture and explain that common material. I and others have provided scenarios which do precisely that, creating far less difficulties and inconsistencies than the no-Q alternative.

Earl Doherty

Earl, bottom line, surely, is that there are some NT scholars out there that see that a case can be made against Q. And now, with the new project at the University of Copenhagen, the case against Q is hitting prime time. That's all - and for those of us who are not familiar with the technicalities involved - it appears that it's going to be quite a debate! Lots of scholars probably have vested interests in the status quo and will want to retain their standing in these matters. But scholarship, if it means anything at all, means that things do not stand still - eventually new ideas will force themselves forward.

And as that old saying goes - no smoke without a fire...

Chaucer · 01-26-2010, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

As I understand it, going by articles you have now published on the web and elsewhere, you do feel it likely that these sayings were made up for a story, in any case, rather than coming from an historical Jesus, right? So if we use that as an ongoing hypothesis, is there something awkward, as you see it, in such sayings being concocted by an author of Matthew (whoever that may be) rather than an author of Q? Ultimately, if we take the so-called "Q" sayings as concocted and not historical to begin with, why is there any greater difficulty in viewing them as the work of a Matthew author rather than a "Q" author?

Good grief! Where did you get an idea like that? Certainly not from me. No one has ever said that Q was “made up” by some “author.” The situation is much more complex than that (as situations in this field usually are—Occam’s Razor is very much out of place here). Collections of sayings are very rarely put together out of whole cloth. They are collected over time, evolving as a community or series of communities develops its ethics and guidance principles. Sometimes they are modelled on collections from outside the sect or even outside the nation (as Israel borrowing and adapting wisdom collections from Egypt). Much of the earliest layer of Q shows clear identification with previous Cynic philosophy and practice. And we can trace indications in the evolution of Q that a founder figure was introduced only at a later stage in the sect’s development.

So there is no such “ongoing hypothesis” as you suggest. If you know so little about the basics of Q, why are you pronouncing on it (or against it)? This seems to go for a lot of people here.

As for the difficulties in seeing Matthew as the “author” of the sayings otherwise assigned to Q: I will patch in a few paragraphs from my book…

(7) There is a distinctive quality and content in the common material assigned to Q. Kloppenborg points to prominent themes and elements that shine out in Q as central concerns but which are not of significant interest in the rest of Matthew and Luke. And vice-versa: Matthean interests such as Jesus being observant and the fulfillment of Torah, or Jesus as messianic shepherd, do not play a role in Q. In other words, if the material in Matthew allotted to Q were actually his product, we would expect at least some of these dominant Matthean interests to appear in that material as well. As Kloppenborg puts it (p.225), “[Q] exhibits a thematic coherence that does not derive from Matthew’s redactional interests.”

But Kloppenborg has left out consideration of one very important dimension of Matthean (and Lukan) interest: the soteriological role of Jesus and his death and resurrection. It would have been a much more powerful example of Q’s distinctive quality had he pointed out that it contains nothing on these matters. For Matthew, in allegedly creating the material copied by Luke—otherwise to be allotted to Q—has managed to produce a large body of sayings and anecdotes which make no bow whatever to those essential concerns of all the Gospels. This observation was what turned many scholars off to the very idea of Q when it was first presented: how could there have been such a document that was devoid of any reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus, any allusion to his saving atonement and sacrificial role?

Today, we should bring the same objection to the claim that there was no Q. How could Matthew have managed to supply from his own invention a separate body of material which consistently exhibits that very void? (He would hardly have done it deliberately.) How could he create within that material, for example, a primary focus on the murder and ill-treatment of prophets sent from God and yet not include Jesus himself within that catalog? The objection that the Jesus of the story had not died yet falters on the pervasive use found in Matthew and Luke which they and Mark have made of Jesus’ own prophetic allusion to his fate (an invention of Mark as in 8:31, etc.), or through parables like the murder of the vineyard owner’s son (Mk. 12:1-9).

In other words, in the MwQ [Mark without Q] scenario, Matthew has miraculously created a subset of material which bears all the marks of a separate document with its own set of interests and characteristics, and one which entirely lacks the essential concerns of his own larger document into which he has fitted it….

(8) If no Q document existed and Matthew becomes the originator of the common material, two other problems are introduced.

The first is the difficulty in envisioning that someone of Matthew’s mentality could have originated many of the sayings assigned to Q. Matthew was a hidebound traditionalist who emphasized the saying placed in Jesus’ mouth that “not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law” (5:18). He was a fulminating prophet who painted a chilling, pitiless picture of the final judgment by the Son of Man, amid “wailing and grinding of teeth” (25:30-46). He penned the most heinous line in all of world fiction: “His blood be upon us and upon our children” (27:25). He was humorless, intolerant, virulently anti-Jewish—even if he was likely Jewish himself. Who can imagine that from his mind and pen could come: “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you…If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left…Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful”?

If there were no Q, we face a notable problem with the Gospel of Thomas. Those sayings in Thomas which are similar to the Q1 stratum would have no roots in the past but would instead have to be traced to Matthew. Yet too good a case has been made which rules out a dependence of Thomas on the Synoptic Gospels. (See Stephen J. Patterson: The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, p.9-16; J. D. Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, p.117-118; H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p.84-85.)

If it is suggested that Matthew did not originate all this material, but drew it from some other source, then one has simply reinvented Q. The concept of Q is in any case much preferable to the idea that a small handful of evangelists were responsible for virtually all of the Gospel content, for it opens up much wider headwaters for understanding the great variety of ideas which flowed into Christianity and were eventually deposited in the Gospels. If it is acceptable to envision the Gospel of Mark as reflecting the ethos and traditions of a Q-style preaching movement based in Galilee, it is hardly a quantum leap to envision that ethos as embodied in a document which Mark himself happened not to possess (perhaps because it was not as far along in its evolution), but which later came into the hands of Matthew and Luke.

Quite clearly, I would very much have to disagree that there are “fingerprints of Matthew all over the sayings source”.

The Kingdom of God preaching movement covered considerable territory in the Levant, at least Galilee and southern Syria. It is quite feasible that the Q document, as a written version of the larger sect’s preaching activities, was the product of only one part of that territory, perhaps a relatively small group of centers. When Mark wrote, though being part of that larger movement he was a party to many Q-type oral traditions (though surprisingly few sayings recorded in Q), he had not encountered the written document itself, even though it would already have existed in one or more other centers. Somewhat later, Matthew and Luke, each operating in different areas and perhaps separated by one or more decades, possessed a Q document and decided to incorporate it into their own revisions of Mark. If the texts of Matthew and Luke indicate that their common material not shared with Mark bears a literary relationship, and yet the case that Luke used Matthew proves too weak and problematic, then one turns to scenarios in which this ‘hypothetical’ document can enter the picture and explain that common material. I and others have provided scenarios which do precisely that, creating far less difficulties and inconsistencies than the no-Q alternative.

Earl Doherty

Actually, it is apparently not on the basis of broad themes that Dave Gentile in the page referenced --

http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main

-- culls odd family resemblances between non-Q Matthew material and certain Q passages rendered identically in Matthew and Luke. Rather, it's much more close linguistic turns of phrase, certain distinct idioms in the original Greek of certain Q passages that are apparently typical of non-Q Matthean style, but that are apparently quite atypical of non-Q Luke material, that Gentile concentrates on. It's surprising that such Q passages with these Matthean linguistic traits should appear sometimes in identical form in both Matthew and Luke.

I wish a practiced eye like yours could please peruse the Gentile on-line survey with the URL I've provided for yourself. I'd like to know how a specialist who is thoroughly conversant with the original Greek of the Q passages views the actual statistical work Gentile has done, putting any provisional conclusions of his entirely to one side. Those are not important; the actual stats may well be quite important. Thanks.

I was very much looking forward to a specialist like yourself perusing Gentile's analyses, the numbers and patterns that his statistical work seems to have unearthed, and seeing if some alternate explanation could be provided for these unique linguistic patterns so atypical of Luke but prime idiosyncracies of Matthew being found in common -- and identical -- Q passages in Luke. Clearly, Luke is jotting down things -- in such cases -- that, idiomatically, are not true to form for him, but they are true to form for Matthew.

I would agree that it's jumping to conclusions to say that Matthew "invented" these sayings altogether! Of course. But going by the atypically Matthean linguistic style of certain passages preserved identically in Luke, Gentile concludes that it is more probable than not that Matthew had some hand in at least consolidating the record of these common sayings in written form.

Please, is an alternate explanation possible of these Matthean quirks in Q passages common to Matthew and Luke? Thanks.

Personally, I hold no brief for any of Gentile's actual conclusions at all -- and BTW, it is very self-evident to me that one of his concluding notions that the original (written) Q was somehow a forgery of sorts(!) comes out of left field and is a needless distraction (I only cite that notion to lay the ghost of that notion once and for all and help us concentrate all the more on the statistical results and the statistical results only, please!). I'm only interested in the statistical results and what they may tell others like you with more experience of these texts in their original Greek than I'm guessing Gentile may have(?).

Have you perused the actual stats that Gentile seems to have generated, and can you personally derive different conclusions from those stats than the (provisional) ones Gentile has made?

Thank you,

Chaucer

youngalexander · 01-26-2010, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Rather, it's much more close linguistic turns of phrase, certain distinct idioms in the original Greek of certain Q passages that are apparently typical of non-Q Matthean style, but that are apparently quite atypical of non-Q Luke material, that Gentile concentrates on. It's surprising that such Q passages with these Matthean linguistic traits should appear sometimes in identical form in both Matthew and Luke.

I wish a practiced eye ...

Pardon? Thort that I had perused the site fairly thoroughly.

In order to understand what was done in this investigation it is vitally important to understand the nature of the data that was used. The data comes from the Synoptic Concordance by Von Paul Hoffmann, Thomas Hieke, and Ulrich Bauer.

You understand what a concordance means? This is a statistical analysis of a set of 'vocabulary items' from the Synoptics - not "certain distinct idioms in the original Greek of certain Q passages".

Quote:

the numbers and patterns that his statistical work seems to have unearthed

That would require a concerted effort by a statistically knowledgeable inquirer. I have no reason to doubt that Gentile has performed a worthwhile and competent analysis. However, no one could provide the type of comment that you are asking for without a thorough examination of the procedure. Do you understand the data limitations, techniques involved, and inherent problems?

Quote:

and seeing if some alternate explanation could be provided for these unique linguistic patterns so atypical of Luke but prime idiosyncracies of Matthew being found in common -- and identical -- Q passages in Luke. Clearly, Luke is jotting down things --

Yarda yarda yarda!
Try the author, who does presumably know whereof he writes for an alternative explination (sic).

Not quite so straight forward eh?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.