Zeichman

Wait... did you accept Q this whole time or am I confused? Because I think I am.
I do agree that his primary motives are theological, but as redactor, he seems to be more concerned with the "historian" aspect than the other three canonical evangelists (cf. http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...djosephus.html) This is heavily implied in his intro to his gospel, additionally.
Rather, that is what I thought you believed. Perhaps we need "sarcasm" tags or something. I'm convinced that these 200 verses circulated independently as "Q." The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard, which is M, seems to fit better with "L", depsite its ommission by Luke. I'm curious as to why something about empowerment like this seems to be quintessential Lukan material. Or the realized eschatology of the Parable of the hidden treasure, also exclusive to Matthew, despite the fact it fits well within the Lukan framework. Matthew 21:31b also seems to work in Luke, despite the fact that it would mean the exact opposite if included in Luke.
I was under the impression that scholarly consensus held that there was tampering with the end of Luke/beginning of Acts. Either way, you're right, I misinterpreted your comment. I certainly agree. Currently, I've been thinking that Luke was written to supress the eschatology of Mark and a now-lost gospel which lacked an empty tomb narrative. Either way, I do acknowlege that these redactors were more than just compilers of sources.
I think in terms of L-material, this can be said of the birth narrative and little else.
More in terms of written documents that are now lost, rather than oral tradition. I think it's generally accepted that the dominance of the oral era ended quite a few decades before the canonical gospels were written. I won't deny that each of the evangelists had their own theological goals, which were made evident in their writings. I've not seen it convincingly argued that the MJ/HJ is based almost wholly on Tanach material (aside from the aforementioned Moses cycle in Matthew and Elijah/Elisha in Markan miracles). Most people who advocate this view state their conclusions, rather than argue them. With them lies the burden of proof.
Cheers, man. I'm enjoying this conversation. I'd also reccomend comparing the Lord's Prayers. I know "the Complete Gospels" by the Jesus Seminar has a complete synopsis of Matthean and Lukan Q-Material, which you may find helpful.

yalla

Gidday Zeichman,
This has to be quick I'm travelling for a while.

Quote:"Wait... did you accept Q this whole time or am I confused? Because I think I am"

Nope..I accept the material exists..obviously...but I would not call it Q...I'd label it -"the stuff "Luke" copied from "Matthew". So in "Luke" we have the stuff from "Mark", that from "Matthew" and that from himself [L]. No Q..that's why I said I don't like using the letter Q to identify the "Matthew/"Luke'' material, it creates a predisposition in the mind to divorce that material from the prima facie point of origin, namely "Matthew". It's a propaganda trick to use a term that presumes a desired answer..it's not a neutral term.
And prima facie that material is clearly from "Matthew". We would have to have good reasons to depart from the position of ascribing that material, clearly literally dependent on someone, to "Matthew". To deny that and to then hypothesize an otherwise completely unknown document as the source for "Matthew" and "Luke" requires evidence that, IMO, is just not there.
You disagree which is why we are doing this.

2 thoughts before I scram.

Quote: "also seems to work in Luke"..... "seems to fit better with "L",".
What I would suggest here is that you are trying to fit "Luke"'s writings, or omissions, into a preconceived idea of what he OUGHT to have rather than taking him on his own terms, whatever they are.
That's akin to the argument that "Luke", if he did copy "Matthew", SHOULD have done it the way Q proponents want. As in.."Why would "Luke" NOT present "Matthew's" sermon on the mount as a block, as in "Matthew", rather than in scattered bits?"
And the simple answer is, from Streeter, cos he didn't want to. "Luke" is a different bloke to "Matthew", he has his own agenda[s], he is not a mere copy/paste merchant.
We should not try to force him into a preconceived Q mould. He takes liberties with his "Mark" material, he takes liberties with his "Matthew", his LXX Tanakh, his Gk. stuff [eg road to Emmaus], he even takes liberties with himself. He is creative and inconsistent. He's "Luke" -whoever that is.

A thought occurred to me. What happened to this mysterious Q document?
At 2 stages in time and place it allegedly existed with enough reputation and credibility for 2 major gospel writers to use it as their second source independently of each other. That is , it allegedly was established as a major document with a minimum of 2 copies existing, one where "Matthew" lived and, in a different time and place, one where "Lucy' lived.
So it must have been extant and considered valuable...IF it existed.
Then, according to Q proponents, it disappeared, from everywhere, in a very short space of time such that there is absolutely no trace of it at all. That is an incredible claim.
Not that documents disappeared, we know they did, but given the alleged necessary availability and importance of such an alleged seminal work it SHOULD have been preserved for at least long enougjh to register on mid 2c screens. Apparently it didn't [?].
I don't find that credible.

Thanks for your conversation ..I'll get back to your unanswered stuff.

Peter Kirby

Suppose that there were only two rules of Synoptic solutions:

1. There must be lines of dependence for the triple tradition (Matthew//Mark//Luke).
2. There must be line(s) of dependence for the double tradition (Matthew//Luke - Mark).

The first rule means that this material shared between all three Synoptics must either descend through lines of dependence between the Synoptics (or, if there is any hypothetical document or recension, from--and maybe also to--this hypothetical document). In this way, the common material is explained as copying rather than coincidence or non-literary indirect dependence (both depending on a common non-literary fund).

The second rule means the same thing, but it applies only to the common material in Matthew//Luke but not Mark.

If these are the only rules, and if we indicate the Gospels by M and K and L, respectively, there are four possible solutions with only two lines of dependence, four impossible solutions because they fail rule (2), and four impossible solutions because they fail rule (1).

K->M, M->L
K->L, L->M
M->L, L->K
L->M, M->K

and the four impossible solutions by rule (2)--because K cannot transmit the double tradition between M and L (or, in the fourth case, because M and L both have no ancestors):

M->K, K->L
L->K, K->M
K->M, K->L
M->K, L->K

and the x impossible solutions by rule (1)--because there are two 'root' documents that don't depend on any other for triple tradition:

M->K, L->K
M->L, K->L
L->K, M->K
L->M, K->M

An alert reader will notice that I also employed a third rule, that a->b and b->a are incompatible, which incompatibilities are not enumerated. The above is a complete list otherwise, where there are only two dependencies and no hypothetical documents.

Therefore, if we had nothing but these two (or three) rules for eliminating hypotheses, and if we were constrained by Ockham's Razor to pick the simplest of non-eliminated hypotheses (i.e. if Ockham's Razor should constrain us and if this is the interpretation of Ockham's razor that does), then we should have to give equal and highest marks to these four hypotheses:

K->M, M->L
K->L, L->M
M->L, L->K
L->M, M->K

...without being able to decide between them with the above two heuristics (and without being able to say that one fits Ockham's Razor better than another). This would tend to the discredit of the Farrer Hypothesis and the five other more complex hypotheses that involve three lines of dependence.

This is, again, assuming a rather abstract view of the Synoptic Problem encapsulated in the two rules given above, as well as a rigid interpretation of Ockham's Razor.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

That is the absolute wrong way at resolving the synoptic problem. If you go out not only looking for a simple solution, but restricting more complex views, you may have ruled out the actual solution and tailor fitted the methodology to find a mirror image of your own views.

Its happened in science, I have no doubt it occurs more frequently in NT research...

I still like Sander's and Davies in SSG. They were pretty blunt about some things related to the SP. They dismissed Boismard but even said the theory explains everything very well. Its just too complex with too many hypothetical stages and texts for them to accept it. Textual contamination and cross-influences also are an issue.

I still think Marcan priority is very safe. I am aware that Mark underwent redaction but so much of canonical Mark is found in MT and Lk that I am not convinced as is Yuri in the need to totally bifurcate between canonical and original Mark. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be discussing a synoptic problem.

I have no problems saying a text resembling all the triple tradition material in canonical Mark with a few more details.

For historical purposes it doesn't matter. We have two independent sources here:

Triple tradition Material (Mark)
Double Tradition Material (Q or Matt's Sources)
Special L material
Special M (if you accept Q).

The exact relation of all this material is somewhat of a non-concern for me once I get past Marcan priority.

I don't think the exact nuances of the synoptoic problem will every trully be resolved exhaustively. I think certain larger patters emerge (e.g. Marcan priority). Things like the reconstruction of Q's layers.....I'm a fencesitter.

Vinnie

TedM

It would have been more accurate to say the "attitude of Christ". Thanks for the correction. It is not clear to me that Paul is limiting this attitude to only "his willingness to be a sacrifice", though that is possible.

Rom 15:2 is preceeded by 3 chapters of ethical teachings which match those of the Q1 and Q in general Jesus in many ways. "let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him. For Christ did not please himself", and in 13:13 "let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires", both appear to imply or at least allow for a Christ who lived a certain kind of life irrespective of the eventual sacrifice.

Phil 2:5 is preceeded by 4 verses that describe an attitude that is embodied in the sacrifice of Christ that follows. However, the incarnation as a human being (or likeness thereof) precedes the sacrifice, so that attitude of tenderness, compassion, no vain conceit of selfish ambition, and of humility which Paul encourages as that of Christ could reference the human being prior to the sacrifice also.

1 Cor 4:15-16 "..I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you , then be imitators of me" This is preceded in verses 11-13 "To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are ill-clad and buffeted and homeless, and hwe labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become, and are now, as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things"

These clearly have 'echos' of the Q1 teachings


These contexts allow for the call for imitation to apply to a "life of Christ" and not just an attitude represented in one act of willing sacrifice. Paul doesn't make it clear though just what he is referring to.

Interesting to me, 1 Cor 11:1 is preceded by 2 chapters regarding Paul's rights as an apostle, focusing specifically on the right to be paid and to eat and drink when offerered--two specific items found in Q1 with regard to the behavior and rights of apostles. CH 11 also references the Lord's supper and the need to treat it with respect--something Jesus is portrayed as doing in the following chapter.



ted

Toto

Were the two posts [by Peter Kirby and Vinnie] meant to be part of this thread or another one? The question here is whether Paul knew Q1.

TedM

With all of this discussion about whether Q really even existed, I wonder if the purpose of this thread can be recaptured? Under the assumption that Q1 really existed, I am wondering what we might be able to conclude about Q's Jesus and Paul's Jesus given the similarities of the teachings? Even if we accept Q1 as valid, is there any reason to conclude that it was originally anonymous or originally was "some other Jesus" who had nothing to do with Paul's Jesus when we find the similarities that we do find between them? Are the links great enough to dismiss a position that we are talking about two distinct and unrelated sects?

As for the discussion of the Tanakh, it may be fruitful to see if Paul's teachings more closely resemble those of the Tanakh than Q1's. If so, wouldn't that argue against Paul paraphrasing Q1? If Paul's teachings more closely resemble Q1 than the Tanakh, wouldn't that argue for Q1 to have influenced Paul or vice versa?

ted

Peter Kirby

There's no need to get testy. I never said that the above was the "right way" of resolving the synoptic problem. I was exploring the implications of a minimal set of restrictions and a rigid application of Ockham's Razor. That implication is that Farrer's Hypothesis is 'outsimpled' by a hypothesis involving only two lines of dependence.

For some, this will be a reductio ad absurdum. But why? What makes us think that, for example,

K->M, M->L

is probably not the solution to the Synoptic Problem? What indeed?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Vorkosigan thinks that Mark knew Paul, so Luke and Matt would also know Paul. The question then would be why aren't the sources more coherent, with more obvious similarities?

Peter Kirby

Even if Mark did know Paul, how would it follow that Luke and Matt also knew Paul?

Which sources? Paul vis-a-vis the Synoptics? Matthew vs. Mark vs. Luke?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby