JonA

I'm curious: How much research have you done on this matter yourself? I'm just wondering what you already know or don't know about the subject so as to have a basis for introducing an explanation.

Jon

Solo

I would say the "most striking" example of the issue is:

Mk 14:65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows

Mt 26:67-68 Then they spat in his face, and struck him; and some slapped him, saying, "Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?"

Lk 22:63-64 Now the men who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him; they also blindfolded him and asked him, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?"

The agreement of Matt and Luke lies outside of the Q scope, meaning some other explanation would have to be found for the identical words (who is it that struck you) they add in the elaboration of Mark.

Best,
Jiri

Bernard Muller

I have a webpage on Q where I explained the minor agreements:
http://historical-jesus.info/q.html
I take Q written, for the most part with full knowledge of gMark, in Greek and Aramaic, by different authors, compiled in one document by another and the Aramaic parts translated by others, and therefore differently.

andrewcriddle

It is a striking example, but IMO it could in principle be explained by an oral tradition known to both Matthew and Luke. I don't think it requires Matthew and/or Luke to have access here to a written source other than Mark.

Andrew Criddle

jdl

Doesn't this approach basically make Q unfalsifiable? Aren't you just using oral tradition to fill the gaps in a literary hypothesis that doesn't anticipate this kind of agreement?

Goulder in his autobiography recalls his outrage at Streeter's use of conjectural emendation to explain minor agreements. Again, it's an attempt to fill gaps in a hypothesis.

Can I ask what you would take as evidence against Q, where you wouldn't accept an invocation of "oral tradition" as explanation?

JonA

Why does this lie outside of a possible Q document(s)? Is it not probable that the Q writing(s) contained some stories also found in Mark? Would this not mean that someone writing a story based on both Mark and Q would have to decide at each point where both sources tell the same story whether to tell it according to one source or the other? And is it not reasonable that if two people are doing this that for some stories they may both choose the Q version over the Mark version?

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
R. Stein in The Synoptic Problem (1987):

One of the strongest arguments against the use of Matthew by Luke is the fact that when Matthew has additional material in the tripple tradition ("Matthean additions to the Markan narrative"), it is "never" found in Luke. (p. 91)

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

I am not sure I see how Q fails to solve the problem you mention.

Jon

Bernard Muller

From my website:
"b) "Who is the one who struck You?" (Mt26:68, Lk22:64):
Mk14:65 "Then some began to spit on Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him, and to say to Him, "Prophesy!" And the officers struck Him with the palms of their hands."
Mt26:67-68 "Then they spat in His face and beat Him; and others struck Him with the palms of their hands, saying, "Prophesy to us, Christ! Who is the one who struck You?""
Lk22:63-64 "Now the men who held Jesus mocked Him and beat Him. And having blindfolded Him, they struck Him on the face and asked Him, saying, "Prophesy! Who is the one who struck You?""

Could "Who ... struck you?" be a small "Q" item?
Very likely NOT:
- "Q" has no other Passion narrative/saying.
- It is not a Jesus' saying (or John's).
- The rest of the narrative is drawn from GMark, with minor alterations.
GMark has Jesus being asked to prophecy while being beaten. That's rather unrealistic and it is highly probable one of the later synoptic authors added on "Who ... struck you?". But which one?
Considering the addition does not make much sense if Jesus can see, the answer has to be "Luke": in GLuke, as in GMark, Jesus is blindfolded; in GMatthew, there is no mention of it. Now let's ask ourselves why would "Matthew" remove 'Jesus blindfolded' if he wrote next "who is the one who struck you?"? The answer can only be "Matthew" had no use of 'Jesus blindfolded' because he did not write anything about the guards' question.
Then, what would happen next?
An early copyist added up "Who ... struck you?" when making copies of GMatthew, according to what he read in GLuke. This is why "Who ... struck you?" appears with the same five consecutive Greek words in both gospels, which is at odd with the rest of the (dissimilar) wording in Mt26:67-68 & Lk22:63-64.
Later, eager to issue "complete" copies of the gospel, other copyists followed suit, causing all the most ancient manuscripts at our disposal (late 3rd to 4th century) to show the addition.

Note: later alterations (easily detectable when showing as discrepancies between the oldest copies) are common in gospels and epistles. Concerning GMatthew, according to the NIV Study Bible, ancient copies do not agree on the following verses, which show addition (<=> lack) or rewording:
5:22,44, 6:13, 8:28, 12:47, 15:6,14, 16:2,3, 17:20,21, 18:10,11,15, 19:29, 21:44, 23:13,14, 24:36, 26:28 & 27:35,46
Let's consider:
Mt21:44 "He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."
and
Lk20:18 "Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."
Let's notice how similar is the wording. Because this saying has no counterpart in GMark, it would be considered "Q" material. So what's the point?
Mt21:44 does not appear in some ancient manuscripts (but most modern Bibles do carry it) and is likely a later "harmonization" from GLuke (as it is suspected for Mt26:68b "Who is the one who struck You?")."

Solo

But didn't you say that Mt & Lk working with oral traditions was not likely as some of their verbal agreements were too close ? Here we are talking a perfect copy of a block of five words. At any rate, there can be other explanations, e.g. "assimilation".

The bigger issue of course is, as jdl pointed out (and I argued against Doherty) the falsifiability of Q. What would make Q a falsifiable theory ?

Best,
Jiri

jdl

You make a good point, Bernard. But there's a scenario I imagine to be just as likely: Matthew writes this verse, imagining many people hitting Jesus at once, making it impossible for Jesus to single out any individual. But Luke thinks it's not clear enough as worded (which it isn't, hence you can so easily reverse the order of dependence), so he chooses to improve on it by adding the blindfold.

Of course, if you don't think that has merit, you have an argument for Q.

Solo

Do you have any examples that Stein cites ? Because it sounds crazy to me. For one you are bringing this up in plain view of an example which contradicts the "never found in Luke" psychobabble. And what about the Temptation ? What about the "who is not with me is against me" in the Beelzebub controversy ? I am sure there is more.....

Best,
Jiri