Jaybees

We KNOW that? How do we know that? Those "few different authors" didn't just copy from each other? How do we know that there are "different" authors?

I'm not claiming you're wrong. It's just that I think you, like me, are just guessing.

Jaybees

I just don't follow that. Sounds as though you agree with me about Q, but I'm not sure.

outhouse

dating helps with this quite a bit.

Copied Gmark, it is the most followed hypothesis. There are no real clues indicating L or M copied one another, and both were from different communities, and that is evident in the scripture. We dont see a mixing for their intended audience. Mt writes to a group of god-fearers [in my opinion] that adhere more to jewish law, then that of L.

We also know GMark is first, and both L and Mt added layers to what they personally thought would be good additions to M



like or not, the probability of Q existing in scripture is very high

add that to the fact we only have a fraction of early material

Adam

I have always rejected Burton Mack on Q stratification as too ideological, and I thought the same applied to John Kloppenborg. Reading his Excavating Q (2000) (spin's link)
I changed this to seeing him as sociological instead. However, his “The Sayings Gospel Q” (in Symbols and Strata, 1996) (Hindley's link) he presents himself as one with Ronald Piper in recognizing a compositional style in Q. Piper saw a four-fold structure that identified sapiential Q1 clusters. Having identified these he extended his theory to include the following similar sayings: Luke 6:27-28, 31-36; 6:29-30; 12:33b-34, 58-5; 17:3b-4. Fine, I agree that these smaller sayings are from Q1 (they do not have close verbal parallels between Matthew and Luke). But look, he’s admitting that these are not the same structure, but using them to validate his original proposal. The problem is that I find each of the proof-texts to have the verbal parallels that mark them as from Q2! His four-part structure applies to Luke 6:37-42, 43-45; 11:9-13; 12:2-9, 22-31, but that brings Piper into conflict with Jacobsen who places 11:9-13; 12:2-9, 22-31 as late (as I do). (Sayings. P. 50) He and Piper stand against Sato in holding 11:2-4, 9-13; 12:2-12, 22-31, 33-34 to be early, not in Q2 where I agree with Sato. (p. 51)

Why presuppose that the more elaborate structure means it comes from the earlier source? By my understanding Q1 comes from notes taken while Jesus preached, not leaving the time to remember and record the whole development of what was said. Q is generally regarded as aphoristic, quite in contrast with M and L that display elaborate parables.

The Q scholars, Kloppenborg top among them, do elaborate scholarship, but they are limited by their own subjectivity and reliance upon the subjective opinions of others. Where, as with Piper the prime criteria for early seems more likely a marker for late, I see us as needing to use my method to regard close verbal parallels as indicating composition in Greek and as later (or outside the originating region) than where the texts indicate an underlying Aramaic text.

andrewcriddle

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

What I meant to say is that unless Matthew knew Luke or Luke knew Matthew something like Q must exist.

Rightly or wrongly most scholars doubt that Luke knew Matthew, (only a very few have suggested that Matthew knew Luke), hence they are required to believe in Q.

Andrew Criddle

Jaybees

Hmm! Palestine wasn't exactly a continent. People travelled around a lot in an area much smaller than the average U.S. state. Word in rural commmunities can travel amazingly fast and pervasively just by word of mouth. Add literacy, though it may be limited in extent, and the word travels that much faster. So L and M needn't have had face to face to face contact to know what the other was speaking or writing about.

andrewcriddle

The point is that, (without face to face contact which we agree is unlikely), Luke must have had access either to something like Q or to a written text of Matthew. Luke having a friend who had visited a christian community where the gospel of Matthew was used in worship and this friend was impressed and told Luke about it when he got back home wouldn't work. There is too much word for word agreement between Matthew and Luke. The explanation must involve the use of written sources.

Andrew Criddle

Jaybees

In pre-literate or semi-literate societies, people are far more prone to being able to remember, verbatim, the speech of others as well as genealogies. myths and general "sayings." For example, the Illiad was passed down through oral tradition, long before it was written down.

Jaybees

Incidentally.

We didn't agree it was unlikely, I merely suggested that it wasn't a necessary explanation for why items of agreement occurred in the two gospels.

andrewcriddle

Sorry for misunderstanding you.

Andrew Criddle