Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 01-02-2005, 05:42 AM

How likely is it that Matthew began as a sayings gospel? 5, 6, and most of 7 are just his teachings. How is the linguistic structure of Matthew? Are the narratives solid enough to account for the differences in the quotes from the other synoptics? Is there enough of a basis to really say so?

http://neonostalgia.com/bible/forums

Vinnie · 01-02-2005, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cweb255

How likely is it that Matthew began as a sayings gospel? 5, 6, and most of 7 are just his teachings. How is the linguistic structure of Matthew? Are the narratives solid enough to account for the differences in the quotes from the other synoptics? Is there enough of a basis to really say so?

http://neonostalgia.com/bible/forums

Um, isn't this the two source theory?

Someone added Q to Mark. Now you are saying Mark was added to Q. There is no functional difference though I suppose you are rejecting Q. Matthew was Q in this scenario and then either its author or someone later saw <Mark and decided to add in a narrative.

Chris Weimer · 01-02-2005, 07:34 AM

Here's how I'm starting to look at it: There's a sayings tradition, which is the nature of Q, supplying the quotes of Jesus. This is actually quite extensive but very brief. Mark took the sayings tradition and wrote a story out of it, as did Matthew and Luke and the Egerton Papyrus. But what seems so odd to me is how Matthew seems to just pull directly from the Sayings tradition while Luke and Mark incorporate more and moreso. This is originally why I give Matthew priority over Luke, because it retains the sayings traditions moreso than Luke, or could that be the other way around? I'm not sure, my mind fluctuates with each new thought. But is Matthew solid enough to be written by one person? Or can we even tell?

the_cave · 01-02-2005, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Um, isn't this the two source theory?

Someone added Q to Mark. Now you are saying Mark was added to Q. There is no functional difference though I suppose you are rejecting Q. Matthew was Q in this scenario and then either its author or someone later saw <Mark and decided to add in a narrative.

Hm, fascinating that this is both the two-source theory and Mark without Q! I've kind of been musing along the same lines myself...it would fit in with Papias' testimony. (It's also compatible with Crossan's Common Sayings Source) In other words, "Q" is just a kind of proto-Matthew. cweb, maybe you should check the synoptic problem website and see if there are any models there that correspond with your idea.

Vivisector · 01-02-2005, 12:41 PM

My recollection is that some have proposed that what Papias referred to was something along the lines of Q. Q itself, though, seems to have some problems fitting Papias's description, since it seems to have been composed originally in Greek. I've never seen any altogether satisfactory reconciliation of Papias with Q and the canonical Gospels. The best I can conclude is, whatever Papias was referring to, it's lost.

V.

Amaleq13 · 01-02-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

The best I can conclude is, whatever Papias was referring to, it's lost.

Kinda makes you wonder if anyone besides Papias really believed it was genuine.

Chris Weimer · 01-05-2005, 02:28 AM

Well, what Papyrus was referring to was a Hebrew quotes gospel, right? What is Matthew made up of? Well, we have large portions of direct quotes from Jesus in Type M format (as opposed to type L or type E or type T, but I'll get to those later). Type M format resembles type T format (Gospel of Thomas) but it also has a narrative different than the Gospel of John or the Egerton Papyrus. We don't need Q anymore, instead, we need multiple Qs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cweb255

Here's how I'm starting to look at it: There's a sayings tradition, which is the nature of Q, supplying the quotes of Jesus.

Or several Qs now, at least two. One in the major synoptic tradition, i.e. Matthew, Mark, and Luke and one in the tradition of John. Of course, there's several extra, one for specifically for Matthew and one specifically for Luke, for now. What kind of quotes exist in Mark that don't exist in Matthew or Luke, and why? I'll get back to this later, I'm still searching.

Disregard my second post here, but so far none of the hypotheses in the synoptic problem website work for me.

Chris Weimer · 01-05-2005, 02:35 AM

Also, I think the Nativities in both Mark and Luke are evidence that Luke didn't have a final Matthew, but it doesn't disallow that he had a non-narrative form of Matthew.

Chris Weimer · 01-05-2005, 02:50 AM

Heh, Ok, I think I got this down, wow.

Pre-sources:

Q1 - Sayings Source 1
Q2 - Sayings Source 2
N1 - Narrative 1 (gMark's Author)
N2 - Narrative Source 2
B1 - Nativity Scene 1
B2 - Nativity Scene 2
M - protoMatthew's Author
L - gLuke's Author
J - gJohn's Author
X - Unkown gospels

I know this seems rather large, but I think it is adequate.

N1 + Q1 = Mark (Mk)
Q1 + M = protoMatthew (or pM)
pM + Mk + B1 = Matthew
pm + Mk + B2 + L = Luke
Q2 + N2 + J = John

NB - Q1 and Q2 can overlap, as well as N1 and N2. As with all oral traditions written down, it parts get left out or added the farther removed from the original source it is.

gregor · 01-05-2005, 06:06 AM

Um, I don't quite see what you're positing with some of this. Take:

Q1 + M = protoMatthew

You've already defined M as protoMatthew's author. Thus, if M is identical to the author, your formula converts to:

Q1+M=M - which cannot be a valid statement unless Q1 = 0

Are you asserting that protoMatthew's author had no idea about this whole Jesus thing until he read Q1?

I think you do better going with text over formulas.

01-02-2005, 05:42 AM	#1
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Matthew as a Sayings Gospel How likely is it that Matthew began as a sayings gospel? 5, 6, and most of 7 are just his teachings. How is the linguistic structure of Matthew? Are the narratives solid enough to account for the differences in the quotes from the other synoptics? Is there enough of a basis to really say so? http://neonostalgia.com/bible/forums

01-05-2005, 02:50 AM	#9
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Heh, Ok, I think I got this down, wow. Pre-sources: Q1 - Sayings Source 1 Q2 - Sayings Source 2 N1 - Narrative 1 (gMark's Author) N2 - Narrative Source 2 B1 - Nativity Scene 1 B2 - Nativity Scene 2 M - protoMatthew's Author L - gLuke's Author J - gJohn's Author X - Unkown gospels I know this seems rather large, but I think it is adequate. N1 + Q1 = Mark (Mk) Q1 + M = protoMatthew (or pM) pM + Mk + B1 = Matthew pm + Mk + B2 + L = Luke Q2 + N2 + J = John NB - Q1 and Q2 can overlap, as well as N1 and N2. As with all oral traditions written down, it parts get left out or added the farther removed from the original source it is.

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

01-02-2005, 07:34 AM	#3
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Here's how I'm starting to look at it: There's a sayings tradition, which is the nature of Q, supplying the quotes of Jesus. This is actually quite extensive but very brief. Mark took the sayings tradition and wrote a story out of it, as did Matthew and Luke and the Egerton Papyrus. But what seems so odd to me is how Matthew seems to just pull directly from the Sayings tradition while Luke and Mark incorporate more and moreso. This is originally why I give Matthew priority over Luke, because it retains the sayings traditions moreso than Luke, or could that be the other way around? I'm not sure, my mind fluctuates with each new thought. But is Matthew solid enough to be written by one person? Or can we even tell?

01-02-2005, 12:41 PM	#5
Vivisector Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: KY Posts: 415	My recollection is that some have proposed that what Papias referred to was something along the lines of Q. Q itself, though, seems to have some problems fitting Papias's description, since it seems to have been composed originally in Greek. I've never seen any altogether satisfactory reconciliation of Papias with Q and the canonical Gospels. The best I can conclude is, whatever Papias was referring to, it's lost. V.

01-05-2005, 02:35 AM	#8
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Also, I think the Nativities in both Mark and Luke are evidence that Luke didn't have a final Matthew, but it doesn't disallow that he had a non-narrative form of Matthew.

01-05-2005, 06:06 AM	#10
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Um, I don't quite see what you're positing with some of this. Take: Q1 + M = protoMatthew You've already defined M as protoMatthew's author. Thus, if M is identical to the author, your formula converts to: Q1+M=M - which cannot be a valid statement unless Q1 = 0 Are you asserting that protoMatthew's author had no idea about this whole Jesus thing until he read Q1? I think you do better going with text over formulas.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.