Roland

People like Earl Doherty and Robert Price make the case that the Q document makes no mention of the death and resurrection of Jesus. I basically agree with them, but I do have a question about this:

If Q is already, by definition, material that is found in both Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark, doesn't that unfairly restrict the possibility that perhaps the passion material could have existed in both Mark and Q and we just would assume it wasn't in Q because of how we've defined it? I'm not sure if I am expressing this idea very clearly, but it is a question that I have often wondered about.

Anyone have any possible answers?

Vinnie

By definition, material Matthew and Luke have in common is "double tradition" material.

Q cannot be limited to this material though. Q "could" have had details about Jesus' death. Some scholars have argued this, but not convincingly. Whether or not Q had a baptismal narrative is sort of up for grabs, despite it being a sayings document. Being hypothetical leaves uncertainty everywhere.

There are also a lot of well knowm Mark // Q overlapps.

So Q has some material found in Mark. Common examples of Mark // Q overlapps:

Pericope or Saying ----------------- Q / GLuke--------GMatthew---------GMark-----------Page Number

Appearance of John ---------------- 3:2b-4---------3:1-3, 5-------- 1:3-5-----------------135
Eschatological Preaching-------------3:16-17------- 3:11-12-------- 1:7-8-----------------135
Instructions for the Road-------------10:4-7---------10:9-11-------- 6:8-13--------------139-140
Beelzebul Accusation-----------------11:14-20------12:22-28--------3:23-26------------141-142
He who is not with me--------------11:23----------12:30-----------9:40-----------------141
Pharisees Take the First Seats-----11:43-----------23:6-----------12:39---------------142
Fearless confession-----------------12:8-9----------10:32-33-------8:38-----------------145
The Spirits Assistance----------------12:11-12-------10:19---------13:9-11---------------145
Whoever carries his cross -----------14:27------- --10:38---------8:34--------------------148
Whoever seeks his life----------------17:33----------10:39----------8:35-----------------148
About Salt--------------------------14:34-35---------5:13------------9:50----------------148
On Divorce---------------------------16:18-----------5:32---------10:11-12--------------148
About Sandal-------------------------17:1-2-----------18:6-7----------9:42---------------148
The Temptation of Jesus---------------4:1-13-----------4:1-11---------1:12-13------------135-136

It must also be stated that not all double tradition amterial is necessarily from the sae source. MT and Lk could have shared a number of source. Both could have independently included a freely floating parable or saying.

Q also cannot naively be defined as all double tradition material.\

A (predominantly) sayings document (synoptic sayings source otherwise known as Q) explains the double tradition materials.

Positing the exact extent, strata, wording, order, originating community and so forth of a hypothetical document is not very fruitful. At one point I supported the layering of Q but there are simply too many problems and unknowns for such overly complex theories.

Vinnie

Bernard Muller

ROLAND:
I have a page about Q here:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/q.html

In it, I explained Q was compiled after GMark was known. Many of its material was fabricated with the full knowledge of GMark, and show as "corrections", expansions, embellishments, explanations, updates, etc.
It is most evident in the Mark/Q overlaps.

There was no reason for the authors of Q to add more on a passion narrative already existing in GMark (long, dubious and flawed), more so because Q is mainly a collection of sayings, not a narration.

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

Bernard, you may have some time issues here.

Mark dates to ca. 70 c.e. I'd say 68-74. When do you date Matthew and Luke? Most no later than ca. 100 c.e. ( I agree) and Matthew is commonly dated 80-90 though the reasons for this are not entirely obvious to me.

At any rate you have

1) Mark is written.
2). Mark becomes popular//influential enough for three evangelists to use it (one of them (Luke) is actually correcting it and another (Q) as well in your view.

How much time do you propose is needed for all this? Were Mark, Q, Mt and Luke all written within the same general locale?

Otherwise, how do these works spread so quickly?

You have several full steps beteeen Mark and (Mt and Luke).

1) Mark is written and beomces popular.
2) Author of Q notices it, writes his correction of it.
3) Q work becomes well known enough for Matthew and Luke to Use them both.

My understanding is that both of these "may be possible" if we understand Matthew and Luke as correcting both of these earlier works. But how much time do we have to posit for popularity of a work? This seems to cut it very close!

And could you please list your best three examples of Q's dependence on Mark? I don't have time to evluate a full page at this time. I would be interested in looking at a few though.

And further, how do you methodologically distinguihs between the exact wording of Q, and what was originally in Mark that may have carried over to Matthew and Luke?

Furthermore, Q is used to explain mainly sayings material shared by Matthew and luke not found in Mark. Q consists, for the most part, of non-Marcan material. How then do say it was dependent on Mark? The only examples I can think of that you could provide would be Mark // Q overlapps. But why not Marcan dependence upon Q? That would of course undermine the two source theory itself though as the best argument against the GH is just ruled out.

Vinnie

Vinnie

We should be skeptical of adding in narrative details because the hypthetical Q is a sayings colelction.

We know the hypothetical Q is a sayings document because the non_marcan portion of Mt nd Lk lack narrative details.

But Mt and Lk largely took the narrative details from Marl. So how do we know Q did not have details found in Matthew and Luke that they took from Mark already over Q?

Maybe Q is a chimera. At any rate, given its hypothetical nature, how do we know for sure?

Vinnie

Bernard Muller

Vinnie wrote: Bernard, you may have some time issues here.

Mark dates to ca. 70 c.e. I'd say 68-74. When do you date Matthew and Luke? Most no later than ca. 100 c.e. ( I agree) and Matthew is commonly dated 80-90 though the reasons for this are not entirely obvious to me.

At any rate you have

1) Mark is written.
2). Mark becomes popular//influential enough for three evangelists to use it (one of them (Luke) is actually correcting it and another (Q) as well in your view.

How much time do you propose is needed for all this? Were Mark, Q, Mt and Luke all written within the same general locale?

Bernard: I already explained where I thought the gospels were written in another thread, just one day ago.
You can also see it at the bottom of my intro page:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html

Vinnie: Otherwise, how do these works spread so quickly?

You have several full steps beteeen Mark and (Mt and Luke).

1) Mark is written and beomces popular.
2) Author of Q notices it, writes his correction of it.
3) Q work becomes well known enough for Matthew and Luke to Use them both.

My understanding is that both of these "may be possible" if we understand Matthew and Luke as correcting both of these earlier works. But how much time do we have to posit for popularity of a work? This seems to cut it very close!

Bernard: Not really
I posit GMark (from Corinth) penetrated very early into GMatthew's community (Antioch, Syria), That where a lot of Q was fabricated. They had about 10 years to do so. Then "Matthew" wrote his gospel some 5-10 years after Q was compliled. GMark had credibility in GMatthew's community, a lot more than in GLuke's!
GMark penetrated GLuke's community probably not earlier than 80-85. It was considered horrific by some of the Christian leaders then and one of them generated a gospel (around 85).

Vinnie: And could you please list your best three examples of Q's dependence on Mark? I don't have time to evluate a full page at this time. I would be interested in looking at a few though.

Bernard: That would take 20 minutes of your time to read my page and avoid me a lot of work. I'll pass on that.

Vinnie: And further, how do you methodologically distinguihs between the exact wording of Q, and what was originally in Mark that may have carried over to Matthew and Luke?

Bernard: I cover that, there and then, on my page on Q. You had years to read it.

Vinnie: Furthermore, Q is used to explain mainly sayings material shared by Matthew and luke not found in Mark. Q consists, for the most part, of non-Marcan material. How then do say it was dependent on Mark? The only examples I can think of that you could provide would be Mark // Q overlapps. But why not Marcan dependence upon Q? That would of course undermine the two source theory itself though as the best argument against the GH is just ruled out.

Bernard: Again everything is explained on my page on Q, with examples from the overlaps (I am glad you admit that) and many others. From my earlier post:
"Many of its material was fabricated with the full knowledge of GMark, and show as "corrections", expansions, embellishments, explanations, updates, etc.
It is most evident in the Mark/Q overlaps."
I go into that big times on my page on Q.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Vinnie wrote:
We should be skeptical of adding in narrative details because the hypthetical Q is a sayings colelction.

We know the hypothetical Q is a sayings document because the non_marcan portion of Mt nd Lk lack narrative details.

Bernard: I do not disagree here.

Vinnie: But Mt and Lk largely took the narrative details from Marl. So how do we know Q did not have details found in Matthew and Luke that they took from Mark already over Q?

Maybe Q is a chimera. At any rate, given its hypothetical nature, how do we know for sure?

Bernard: your point escapes me. What do you mean?

Best regards, Bernard

Toto

Consider that Q may be an artificial construct, like the ether.

See Vork's review here: The Case Against Q.