Vinnie

I hardly think Raymond Brown had never heard of the thesis which posits Luke knew Matthew. Mainly because he critiques this view in Death Messiah. Brown also explicitly states on p. 112 (Intro) that he is listing "some proposals" and that he "shall draw out corollaries from the most commonly accepted solution."

Brown also explicitly mentioned the Mark without Q thesis on p. 114 in Intro right after he critiqued the view that Luke knew Matthew. He did this from the framework of Matthean priority but said in the next section under Marcan priority that the Mark without Q case suffers from the same problems outlined prior on Luke knowing Matthew. He offered a critique in death of Messiah and I believe in his estimation, his work on the ifnancy narratives (Brith Messiah) leads him away from Luke knowing Matthew as well.


You have not shown how any scholar assumes Q, rather than works on prior argued studies, let alone Raymond Brown, who contrary to what you posted, does make reference to the Mark without Q thesis and offers a small critique of it.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Does Goodcare attempt to thoroughly, pericope by pericope, explain the differences and omissions of Luke if he knew Matthew?

Vinnie

Tharmas

Not enough. That’s partly why I started this topic, to get some ideas and information.



I don’t mean to be making any claims here. I was just using it as an example of one of those areas that scholars argue over as if they had an actual text in front of them.


That’s easy for you to say!

Well, I’m beginning to wonder why we need to posit a “source” in the sense of a single written, codified, text. We know for example that Papias, a third or fourth generation Christian, had use of Mark, and perhaps another gospel (Matthew? Hebrews?), and a whole body of oral tradition beside, that he apparently specially valued.


Thanks for the info. I’m working through Meier currently.


I’m actually fairly familiar with Thomas. I’m a bit surprised at the confidence of your first century date. I agree with it, but personally I would express it more cautiously (“possibly first century…”). On the other hand, reading Meier I have become aware of the arguments for seeing Thomas as a later, Gnostic creation. Before I really encountered the arguments and thought about them I dismissed them as coming from people who didn’t understand Gnosticism (“Thomas was found in a Gnostic library and therefore it is Gnostic”). I on the other hand found more Gnostic influence in the Gospel of John than Thomas. Meier’s summary has made me re-think that position considerably. I may have to track down some of his references. In any case, his basic point remains: Thomas is a sayings Gospel not because it is more primitive than the Canonicals but because Gnostics by definition are going to include neither birth narrative nor death narrative in their Gospel. Again, a simple argument, but I like simplicity.


Perhaps. I am unfortunately even more than usual extremely pressured time-wise. I also tend to be a “big picture” kind of thinker. I like the Goodacre site I list in the OP because it has a neat sort of “top ten” list – the Minor Agreements, that sort of thing.

Thanks very much for your thoughtful response!

Tharmas

What I've seen so far is the striking similarities in their use of Mark material, that is, where Luke and Matthew agree in an unusual addition to Marcian (i.e. Passion) material.

I haven't yet found how he explains the difference in the nativity stories, which to my mind is a heck of a big difference to explain if Luke copied Matthew!

Vinnie

I am guessing that one of the IN is going to be viewed as a later addition.

Vinnie

Cool

Yes, but scholars sometimes argue what belongs to extant texts that we do have. We do not have the original 1 Corinthians. We have a copy of a copy of a copy. But scholars still feel free to argue over whether the original (which we do not posess) contained x or y or z line.

Of course Q is hypothetical in a different sense. I recognize that but the point is that it is only one of degree. For the most part we don't run into any difficulty attributing stuff to Q (e.g. varbatim double tradition agreements) but yes, some double tradition agreements are not so strong.

We don't. That is why I said "source(s)". Q and Thomas are said to use such oral and written sources themselves. Either way we have to posit written sources for the material. I do not think it is feasible to attribute all of the double tradition to Matthew drawing solely from oral traition.

But this doesn't change much for Jesus research unless you subscribe to detailed reconstructions of the text, community strata, layering, etc., of Q.

What volume?

I have high confidence in a first century date for Thomas (albeit a late first century one). The "latest possible" date is of course 140 C.E. The important point is not so much an exact date but the fact that it is an independent witness.

I wasn't too fond of Meier's treatment of Thomas. Here was my critique:

http://www.acfaith.com/meierthomas.html

Yet is you want an accurate position on the nature of the synoptic problem a time-friendly top ten list is a good place to start, but in the end, it won't cut it. We have to crack open them books

Vinnie

edited to fix quote tag

Peter Kirby

Michael Douglas Goulder attempts this in Luke: A New Paradigm (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series V 20).

Goodacre addresses some of the commonly advanced objections of Luke depending on Matthew in The Case Against Q and The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze.

best,
Peter Kirby

Nomad

I have no idea if Brown had heard of the Farrer Hypthesis or not, but given his silence in a work that is supposed to intruduce the student to all relevant treatments of the Gospels and NT texts this is remarkable. Normally he is much more thorough, even with theories that he finds wanting.
No, he treats the Griesbach Hypothesis (Matthew>Luke>Mark) as the only serious alternative to the 2DH, then dismisses any other alternative without discussion, and, more importantly, without referring to important works that challenge Q. Goulder makes it into the bibliography, but remains unquoted, so the student can hardly be expected to know what Goulder is actually arguing.

For example, from Brown's Intro:
"The basic argument against Marcan priority rests on the Minor Agreements cited above in reference to the Griesbach hypothesis. Good arguments can be offered for many of them, but some remain very difficult."

Very simply, Brown never considers the possibility of the Minor Agreements pointing to Lucan dependence upon BOTH Mark and Matt, and THAT is the problem with North American scholarship today. Most don't even try. Instead they have renamed the Minor Agreements as "Mark-Q" overlaps, and thereby begged the question. The Minor Agreements do remain very difficult, and they are the evidence that will eventually force scholars to either heavily modify their view of Q, or to chuck it all together.

Yeah, and this was my own biggest reason for accepting Q as well. If Luke knew of Matthew BN and Resurrection story he ignored them completely. The problem with this argument is that one cannot argue from Luke's refusal to use a source in some parts. Luke refuses to use large sections of Mark, but we do not say from that fact that he did not know Mark. Luke obviously either did not know, or did not like, Matthew's treatment of Jesus' birth, nor His Resurrection, but from the evidence we cannot know which. The decision of whether or not Luke knew Matt depends instead upon his treatment of both the double and triple tradition material. The latter is called "Mark-Q" overlaps by Q proponents, but that does not help the Q cause, since these supposed overlaps serve as one of the keys that point to dependence of Luke upon Matthew.

BTW, have you read either Goodacre or Goulder, especially their books?
It was not my intention to "show" this, but only to state that it is all too common to see a North American scholar assume Q without discussion or evidence in support of the existence of Q. Goodacre and Goulder both demonstrate this powerfully, especially Goodacre in Chapter 2 of The Case Against Q. His examples are especially intriguing, and include more than just Brown, of course.

Nomad

Nomad

Yes, though you will have to use The Case Against Q to see this (as Goodacre points out in a recent post to the Synoptic-L list, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze was meant to be an introductory text book for undergrads, while The Case Against Q is "a specialist treatment for scholars using Greek, with extensive engagement with the scholarship on the issues"). From Case he does this in Chapters 5: "Luke, Narrative Criticism, and the Sermon on the Mount", 7: "How Blessed are the Poor? Source-Critical Reflection on the First Beatitude in Matthew, Luke Thomas and Q", and 8: "Major and Minor Agreements". Chapter 9: "Narrative Sequence in a Sayings Gospel? Reflections on a Contrast between Thomas and Q" is also highly instructive, demonstrating that the if there is a Q, it is not a sayings source like Thomas is.

Taken together, as I said in my original post, Goodacre's arguments are devestating against Q, and thus far no detailed response to those arguments have been offered. Since the book only came out in 2002 this is not surprising, but if the Q proponents do not address Goodacre's and Goulder's arguments they will find themselves in a very difficult spot at some point in the future.

Nomad

Vorkosigan

<inspects bank account> "Honey? Can we not eat for the next two weeks?"