Vorkosigan

Does getting rid of Q really get rid of Q?

I mean, assuming that Luke really copied Matthew and there is no other document involved, where did those sayings come from? Probably not from Matthew's brain. Are they really all disembodied oral stories? Or did Matt steal them from the Cynic tradition? Or what? Aren't we still left with something like Q, a sayings document used by Matthew as a source?

Also, I've been turning over the effect of getting rid of Q on the various Jesus-myth arguments. I admit, that based on the questions above, I don't see how it makes any difference at all. Been goin' back and forth about it.....

Actually, I think the Chinese have been trying to send me a message all this time. Whenever I say "Thank you" in English, a cute popular response is "No Q!" (when we say it, it sounds like 'than kew'...). Clearly the heavens were sending me a sign....

Vorkosigan

Cretinist

I will have to buy The Case Against Q and read it, but it seems to me, as you have pointed out, that supposing Luke copied Matthew doesn't get rid of the Q problem. But it does bring up the question of why Luke moved so much around if he copied Matthew. I mean, the minor agreements seem to be much, much easier to explain than the huge differences like the genealogy and the birth narratives.

Of course, if one accepts that John had a copy of Mark, then I suppose that is evidence that Luke could have quite freely used material in Matthew, since John appears to have done so with Mark. I think what would help is to analyze how freely Luke uses Mark, to get an indication of how freely he may (or may not have) used Matthew.

MortalWombat

Doherty seems to think that the mythicists' case would actually be easier without Q.

Cretinist

Very interesting. Thanks MortalWombat!

Toto

Historicists use Q and the alleged layers of Q to push the sources of the gospels back towards when Jesus allegedly lived, by triangulating Luke and Matthew. If aMatthew used a sayings source and Luke then reworked Matthew, the sayings source would not need to be early or widespread - just something that aMatthew either had access to or derived from some other tradition, or just made up.

I am reading Robert Price's Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. He dates Mark most probably to the second century, Matthew after that. This puts an uncomfortably long time between a historical Jesus crucified under Pilate and the first written indication that Jesus actually said anything.

Doctor X

There are books other than Friedman's?

Anyways, I would find that interesting. Traditionally, scholars tried to place Mk before the Squishing of Jerusalem to preserve the possibility that it contained "real" history and "real" sayings. People could then debate whether or not the "apocalypse" of Mk with the "prediction" of the Squishing of Jerusalem was a later addition or a real prophecy.

This has not really worked, and now most date Mk after the Squishing. I would be intrigued to see evidence for a later date.

The problem with Q is that it is a recovered document. What was "left out?" Is it all from the same document? I do not think the Luke-read-Mt works at all. Kloppenberg gives a generous review of The Case Against Q. I had the opportunity to speak with a Q-ster and ask what was the evidence that Q and other sayings material is "early enough"--enough to be "da real thing."

Answer: none.

--J.D.

Toto

This post by Ken Olson to synoptic-L seems apropos:

rlogan

Well, Thomas comes to mind. I know there are Thomas/Q parallels but Thomas can't be the source.

So there are wise sayings floating around that they put into the mouth of the composite Jesus.

And even if there was an HJ. he'd learn all the smart and stylish sayings, wouldn't he?

Vorkosigan

Olson's comments are excellent.

I think the strongest argument that is made is that the reworking of Matt by Luke is "highly improbable." And there, Goodacre's book is at its most brilliant. Instead of focusing on the world of the NT, he posits: if Luke's position on Matt is improbable, then we would expect that when compared with other artists who reworked Matthean material, Luke's rearrangement should be an outlier. But just the reverse is found. Luke's re-arrangement is often echoed by others. To show this he turns to movies, including one made off the Gospel of Matthew, and shows that while they all treat the material differently, they nevertheless all re-arrange it in radical ways for their own storytelling purposes. Luke is not an outlier, but firmly in a tradition.

This insight is important because it in effect destroys the argument that Luke's use of Matthew is not comprehensible.

For a similar modern situation, compare the Return of the King in book and film. The book is a moving story of friendship, love, and suffering; the movie is formulaic war film. Why would you restructure the Matthean geneology? One might as well ask why Jackson got rid of the climactic scene of the Witch-king riding through the gate of Minas Tirith, confronting Gandalf, or why he destroyed the most moving moment in fantasy, when Merry kills the Witch-king, or took the love story from the appendix and made it central to the film. The reason is simple: Tolkien didn't suit him. Like Luke, he wanted to use an established story for his own purposes.

I can't recommend that book enough. I would dearly love to take Goodacre and Price out for sashimi and sake, and listen to the ensuing discussion.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I don't know. I am currently going round and round on this one.