Chaucer

If -- just for the sake of argument -- one supposes that Q did exist but that it was first compiled by a younger Matthew (or the writer who authored Matthew), might that both preserve the live possibility of Q and also satisfactorily address some of the alarming data that you reference Goodacre as having assembled?

Just a thought.

Thanks,

Chaucer

Solo

What is this: a biblical studies version of Let's Make a Deal ?

It's really much more simple. You either convince yourself that Luke did not know Matthew (and then you need Q) or you admit the possibility that Luke was writing his own stuff while reading and rearranging Matthew (and then you don't need Q).

I find it extremely ironic, e.g. that so much weight is being placed on an inane insistence that Luke's "blessed are you poor" is more "primitive" than Matthew's "blessed are the poor in spirit" because it is shorter when "Q" itself descended from "Quelle" which designation issued from the original "primitive" form known as "Logien Quelle".

Jiri

Chaucer

Papias makes tantalizing reference to a Matthew text that he describes as only "logia". Since the 19th century, scholars have been puzzling over what the term "logia" could possibly mean. If it means sayings, then the odd fact that highly distinctive ticks in Matthew's Greek writing style are also found in Q passages that both Matthew and Luke present identically -- even though such stylistic traits are found nowhere else in Luke at all -- could point to an original sayings text that did indeed exist but was compiled by a younger Matthew before the full narrative Matthew Gospel that we know today was written. In other words, the younger Matthew was the author of this mysterious Q, and it was written when Matthew (or the author of the familiar Matthew) was a very young man.

However, if "logia" means something more general, like general accounts, tales, or narratives, etc., then the odd coincidence that traces of Matthew's distinctive Greek style appear only in so-called Q passages in Luke could point instead to Luke having adapted Matthew directly, thus obviating any need for supposing any such thing as a Q source in the mix at all.

Chaucer

aa5874

You must admit that this is all highly speculative. How can you now claim some author named Matthew was a young man if he wrote "Q"? Why could not the hypothetical "Q" be written by an old man named Judas or Apollo?

Well, perhaps it is time to use other meanings of "logia" like general accounts, tales or narratives and see how those fit the extant historical sources of antiquity.

If "Q" cannot be found then perhaps "logia" may have some other meaning.

spin

I don't have the time to format the parallels regarding the sending out of the twelve (70) though it would make the textual relations far clearer, but I'd be interested in knowing how the Farrar supporters explain the parallels, for there are four sources to consider, Mt 10:1-16, Mk 6:7-11, Lk 9:1-5 and Lk 10:1-12.

The Q explanation for these texts is that there was a Q version and a Marcan vesrion of the same story. Lk 9:1-5 is based on the Marcan source, while Lk 10:1-12 is based on the Q source and use for the 70 apostles. Mt 10:1-16 is a combination of the two sources.

Regarding the Farrar, to me it would seem that the Lucan writer(s) would have to have picked out the non-Marcan parts of the Matthean account in order to write the sending out of the seventy. That seems incredible.


spin

Rick Sumner

I hope to have time to offer comments on the posts I've missed over the weekend (though I'm not sure just yet), but I'll touch on this one, because I think a possible solution is easier than it might appear.

If Luke is sitting, with Mark on one side and Matthew on the other, it would be quite easy for him to see what Matthew had done--what Matthew had conflated with the Markan story.

It was a simple matter for Matthew to conflate the seventy and the twelve--whether he'd received the seventy or redacted it himself. It would surely be just as simple for Luke to take it apart once he realized what Matthew had done with his sources. The ease of the redaction works both ways--that is, it's every bit as easy to fathom Matthew conflating Q and Mark is at is to fathom Luke separating Mark and Matthew.

Perhaps a brief counter-question, that you might have some interest in given your many discussions on nazaraios in the past. Goulder provides a compelling argument for Matthean invention of the term nazaraios. (Goulder, "Two Significant Minor Agreements (Mat. 4:13 Par.; Mat. 26:67-68 Par.)," Novum Testamentum 45 (2003): 365-373.) It's more difficult to explain the term's presence arising in Q.

Yet there it is in Luke. Scribal harmonization is rightly called out by Goulder as an escape hatch.

So how does Luke know?

I don't have time to elaborate fully on Goulder's presentation, though Carlson provides a nice discussion on his blog. If you don't have JSTOR at your present location (You've indicated that you bounce around a fair bit) and want to read it, let me know, and I can pass on the paper.

When we start finding not only minor agreements, but minor agreements that include a Lukan hapax it begins to get difficult to assert that Luke doesn't know the shoes are red.

And if Luke knows the shoes are red then it really doesn't matter how many problems that causes. It really doesn't matter how difficult it is to explain Lukan creativity, a thought process that was, in many respects, probably more complicated than we're going to fathom anyway. It really doesn't matter how pretty Q is, or whether or not Luke has scrambled those eggs with a vengeance.

If he knows they're red I don't care if his story looks like The Wiz more than The Wizard of Oz. The reality remains the same: He's seen an auburn haired lass play Dorothy.

As an aside (and not intended to be the question at present), for anyone interested who isn't aware, the second MA is the infamous "Who hit you" minor agreement in the Passion. Goulder's argument for Matthean invention of the passage is, so far as I know, unanswered, with the usual response to take one of two ad hoc positions: A scribe harmonized Luke with Matthew, or Luke had Q and Matthew.

Taken on its own, either answer is a cop-out, but if a compelling case could be made for Q outside of it, I'd be prepared to grant the former (the latter just begs the question of why we have Q in the first place. It was, after all, premised on the relative independence of our later synoptics), which is why I'm less interested in responses to it at the moment.

For an argument that perhaps hasn't gotten as much air time as it should, there was another paper in Novum Testamentum (I'll dig up the reference later. . .EndNote is on my Windows box) suggesting that Matthew used Luke, rather than the other way 'round. Goodacre's bit of rhetoric ("no serious scholar. . .") hardly passes muster, and probably says more about convention than anything else. The idea should perhaps be engaged more seriously, even if it's ultimately found wanting.

youngalexander

Hey, I like that kinda talk!:dancy:

spin

For some reason you miss out on the most vital fact. Luke has two stories, when supposedly the sources each have only one.

(As to the garden path, Goulder assumes his conclusion and therefore says nothing.)


spin

neilgodfrey

I think you have missed my point. Your reply is addressing a case where one makes a series of discrete explanations for each difference. My point is that it is just a few major theological themes or differences between the gospels that explains each of the differences. This is not the same as an ad hoc explanation for each one, which I agree would not be of any worth.

As for over-subtlety, you would need to point to specifics for me to know what you are thinking of. (You once persuaded me that some notes I had made quite some years ago were "over-subtle" but since then I have seen the very same "overly subtle comparisons" of mine published by Robert M Price, and in a context suggesting he considers them to be anything but particularly subtle. But maybe you think he was being over-subtle, too. ;-)

Rick Sumner

"Supposedly" and "actually" are clearly two different things. Luke knows what Mark's story looks like. He knows what Matthew looks like. He also knows Matthew used Mark (it's obvious to me, why wouldn't it be obvious to Luke?).

We don't need to imagine Luke to be a genius to realize that Matthew - Mark = Matthean addition. In other words, it should be patently obvious to Luke that Matthew represents two stories, not one.

Why would it be more plausible for Matthew to conflate his sources than for Luke to dissect his?

He provides a fairly lengthy argument in favour of Matthean invention. You really think this constitutes a response?