Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 05-05-2012, 10:06 AM

Hello all! Long time no see.

I thought I'd stop by and post something a bit puzzling about Q. This has to do with Jesus' rejection at Nazareth (Mk 6.1-3 // Mt 13.53-55 // Lk 4.14-22), which isn't in Q but seems like it either should be or the entire premise behind Q (Luke doesn't know Matt) is rendered void.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark 6.1-3

Jesus left there, and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked "Isn't this the carpenter?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 13.53-55

When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked "Isn't this the carpenter's son?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke 4.14-22

Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. "Isn't this Joseph's son?"

According to the mainstream solution to the Synoptic problem, Luke here is only following Mark. But if that's the case, why did Luke change Mark's "Isn't this the carpenter" to "Isn't this Joseph's son"?

It seems like the most natural evolution of this section would be Isn't this the carpenter > Isn't this the carpenter's son > Isn't this Joseph's son which would necessitate that Luke is using Matt or using a source that used Matt.

outhouse · 05-05-2012, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Hello all! Long time no see.

I thought I'd stop by and post something a bit puzzling about Q. This has to do with Jesus' rejection at Nazareth (Mk 6.1-3 // Mt 13.53-55 // Lk 4.14-22), which isn't in Q but seems like it either should be or the entire premise behind Q (Luke doesn't know Matt) is rendered void.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark 6.1-3

Jesus left there, and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked "Isn't this the carpenter?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke 4.14-22

Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. "Isn't this Joseph's son?"

According to the mainstream solution to the Synoptic problem, Luke here is only following Mark. But if that's the case, why did Luke change Mark's "Isn't this the carpenter" to "Isn't this Joseph's son"?

It seems like the most natural evolution of this section would be Isn't this the carpenter > Isn't this the carpenter's son > Isn't this Joseph's son which would necessitate that Luke is using Matt or using a source that used Matt.

first the word is Tekton not carpenter. jesus was a handworker, a peasant renter.

next is, L and M were layered with Gmark as a foundation.

both L and M were writing in diferent geographic locations and for different audiences, that had slightly different ideas about their own version of what jesus did and did not do, and just who he was.

Gmatthew was written for a more jewish audience while using the roman foundation of mark

Gluke was more of a god-fearer jewish roman writing to a roman audience.

you will have differences

EarlDoherty · 05-05-2012, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercy

According to the mainstream solution to the Synoptic problem, Luke here is only following Mark. But if that's the case, why did Luke change Mark's "Isn't this the carpenter" to "Isn't this Joseph's son"?

In Mark, "Joseph" as the father of Jesus had not yet been invented. In Matthew, Joseph appears in the Nativity story, and thus Jesus as a "carpenter" was clarified as a carpenter's son. In Luke, Joseph also appears as father of Jesus (no necessary reliance on Matthew) and Luke decided for his own reasons to supply the name of the carpenter whose son Jesus was.

It's going to take a lot more than that to unseat Q.

Earl Doherty

aa5874 · 05-05-2012, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercy

According to the mainstream solution to the Synoptic problem, Luke here is only following Mark. But if that's the case, why did Luke change Mark's "Isn't this the carpenter" to "Isn't this Joseph's son"?

In Mark, "Joseph" as the father of Jesus had not yet been invented. In Matthew, Joseph appears in the Nativity story, and thus Jesus as a "carpenter" was clarified as a carpenter's son. In Luke, Joseph also appears as father of Jesus (no necessary reliance on Matthew) and Luke decided for his own reasons to supply the name of the carpenter whose son Jesus was.

It's going to take a lot more than that to unseat Q.

Earl Doherty

You have NOT established that there was an actual specific document called "Q" [common material of gMatthew and gLuke] just as it has NOT even been established that an actual specific document with common material between gMark and gMatthew did actually exist.

Once it is deduced that stories in gMatthew were copied from gMark then the very same thing may have happened that the author of gLuke copied material from gMatthew.

There are stories about Jesus in gMark, gMatthew and gLuke that must have been made up so there is no way to show that some earlier source is necessary for any event about Jesus.

Someone made up the conception and birth of Jesus--it could have been the author of gMatthew.

The sayings of Jesus could have been made up by the author of gMatthew and it is known that some of them are from Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint like the Sermon on the Mount.

Until you can establish that the sayings of Jesus could NOT been fabricated by the author gMatthew and could NOT have been based on Hebrew Scripture then "Q" will ONLY have an hypothetical "seat"--not a real seat.

There is no need to "unseat" an hypothetical seat.

Solo · 05-05-2012, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercy

According to the mainstream solution to the Synoptic problem, Luke here is only following Mark. But if that's the case, why did Luke change Mark's "Isn't this the carpenter" to "Isn't this Joseph's son"?

In Mark, "Joseph" as the father of Jesus had not yet been invented. In Matthew, Joseph appears in the Nativity story, and thus Jesus as a "carpenter" was clarified as a carpenter's son. In Luke, Joseph also appears as father of Jesus (no necessary reliance on Matthew) and Luke decided for his own reasons to supply the name of the carpenter whose son Jesus was.

It's going to take a lot more than that to unseat Q.

Earl Doherty

One, there is absolutely no logical connection between the nativity and Matthew changing Jesus occupational status from "carpenter" to "carpenter's son" (evidently unemployed).

Two, if Luke did not know Matthew, he had to have a source other than Q to connect the incredulity of his home town (specifically Nazareth in Luke) to being either the carpenter or the carpenter's son (by implication).

So this would be one of the reasons why you can say confidently that Luke knew Matthew.

Or are you with Ehrman who now by all appearances is toying with the cuckoo theory of Casey that sees "chaotic Q" extending to "passion narrative" (p.80) ? Do you remember what I told you last year ? There is only one purpose of Q(uelle), and that it to drag the texts closer to the ultimate Urquelle called "der golden Mund Jesu".

Best,
Jiri

James The Least · 05-05-2012, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

next is, L and M were layered with Gmark as a foundation.

both L and M were writing in diferent geographic locations and for different audiences, that had slightly different ideas about their own version of what jesus did and did not do, and just who he was.

Gmatthew was written for a more jewish audience while using the roman foundation of mark

Gluke was more of a god-fearer jewish roman writing to a roman audience.

you will have differences

All of the gospels were written by Gentiles for Gentiles. There were no intended "Jewish audiences" for what was written and conceived of as anti-Jewish theology/mythology.

outhouse · 05-05-2012, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

next is, L and M were layered with Gmark as a foundation.

both L and M were writing in diferent geographic locations and for different audiences, that had slightly different ideas about their own version of what jesus did and did not do, and just who he was.

Gmatthew was written for a more jewish audience while using the roman foundation of mark

Gluke was more of a god-fearer jewish roman writing to a roman audience.

you will have differences

All of the gospels were written by Gentiles for Gentiles. There were no intended "Jewish audiences" for what was written and conceived of as anti-Jewish theology/mythology.

False

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

He wrote for a Jewish audience:

like "Q" and "M", he stresses the continuing relevance of the Jewish law; unlike Mark he never bothers to explain Jewish customs; and unlike Luke, who traces Jesus's ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews

Adam · 05-05-2012, 05:25 PM

The OP fusses with what is actually just a definition. It became convenient to speak of a document equal to the overlap of Matthew and Luke. Later than that 1920's convention, it became obvious that Q (or a part of a Chaotic-Q) was in gMark. Here's my explanation several years ago in my
Q from Noesis

Quote:

The other major source of the Synoptic gospels is generally acknowledged to be Q. Q is usually assumed to be the portions of Matthew and Luke that overlap, but are not in Mark. This is only generally true. The truly Q material underlies Matthew, Luke, and also Mark as an Aramaic original that causes the word use to be different in the derivative gospels. The parables in Mark are generally not exact in word-choice with Luke, so this is a bold statement, but comparison with the (non-canonical) Gospel of Thomas shows that the Q material Thomas draws from also includes texts used in Mark. (Scholarship has had fifty years to absorb this, but still resists learning it. The Jesus Seminar is the worst example of continuing misuse of Thomas.)

Once the barrier is broken that Q material exists in Mark, the radical change is that even narrative in Mark may be from Q. The portions of Mark not already listed above could be largely from Q. The narrative material in question is called by scholars the Twelve-Source. We cannot tell whether Q and Twelve-Source are distinct.

That Q and Twelve-Source are not distinct is suggested by external criticism. Tradition says that Matthew wrote this gospel. The Higher Critics have suggested that this may have been Q, limited to sayings that occur only in Matthew and Luke. Conservatives have continued to hold that Matthew wrote the gospel with his name. I say split the difference. Acknowledge that Matthew wrote most of the Q discourses, but also allow for the Twelve-Source narrative, which would seem most likely to have come from him. His name (=Levi) occurs first at Mark 2:14, and very little occurs before that. The Q-Twelve-Source in Mark is the following:

Mark 1:9-15, 1:29-2:16, 3:13-4:41, 6:2-16, 9:14-29, 9:33-37, 10:41-11:11, 1:15-19, 12:1-17, 24-34, 13:17-23, 33-37, 14:10-25, 14:43-45, 62-72, 15:29-32, 15:42-16:8.

As I stated above, the mark of this document is that it was not available in Greek at the time it was utilized to bring in to Mark and Luke. As an Aramaic text, it was not likely to survive. Conversely, the Petrine Ur-Marcus did get translated into Greek in time. Why then has it survived? Likely because it was soon merged in with the Twelve-Source to form Greek Mark.

That Q was available for Mark and yet so little was used, seems strange. We do know, of course, that we have a text, our Mark, that for the most part excludes Q. More to our common sense, another text developed that included all this Q, the Twelve-Source. The additional Q portions not in Mark are as follows in Luke:

Luke 11:29-36, 11:52-12:38, 12:47-13:17, 13:23-30, 14:3-33, 15:1-16:31, 17:22-25, 19:11-27.

As you see, it includes Mark 6:2-3 within Q.

Bingo the Clown-O · 05-07-2012, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

It's going to take a lot more than that to unseat Q.

Earl Doherty

Yea.

Right.

Tis but a scratch.

Had worse.

It's just a flesh wound.

Jane H · 05-09-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

According to the mainstream solution to the Synoptic problem, Luke here is only following Mark. But if that's the case, why did Luke change Mark's "Isn't this the carpenter" to "Isn't this Joseph's son"?

Possibly out of reverence for what he saw as the Son of God, who is rather derided with the Marcan form of the question. Matthew did something similar by deflecting the woodworker thing onto Joseph; Luke took the more radical route of dropping the woodworker thing altogether.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.