EarlDoherty

Yes, what Chaucer is asking of me would be a huge task, one I am not able or willing to undertake at this time, if ever. In fact, I was going to reply along the lines of that very "alternative" which Gentile himself has commendably presented. I have more than once argued that basing conclusions on specific and even minute textual features is extremely risky, considering that over a century of amendment was available to early Christian copyists (who were forgery and amendment artists par excellence) before we reach the extant copies now in our possession. And what surviving quotations we possess for that long interim, such as in Justin and in Marcion courtesy Tertullian, indicates that the texts were very fluid for their first hundred years. An important part of that fluidity has been pointed out by Gentile himself: that the text of one evangelist could be influenced by the text of another, sometimes even inadvertently.

In any case, the arguments I put forward showing that the Q material in Matthew has its own distinct qualities which are not characteristic of Matthew should be allowed to carry considerable weight against any study involving the comparison of texts.

Earl Doherty

Rick Sumner

Are you aware of any contemporary reconstruction that exists that does not include "Mark/Q Overlaps"? I'm not.

This is not only an oversimplification, it's inaccurate. Q Material is material that we can reasonably conclude exists if we conclude in favor of the relative independence of Matthew and Luke. If we can't maintain the basic premise--that Matthew and Luke are independent, the entire thing falls like a house of cards. Or at least it should. Now we're starting to see suggestions that Luke had Matthew, Mark and Q. Though if we're going to go that route, why not include proto-Luke and Peter's notes and Aramaic Matthew and--what the hell--let's throw the "Cross Gospel" in too. Defenses of Q are increasingly ad hoc.

Or at least that's what it used to be. Now it's not even that. Instead it's a construct that fits a projected image of what such a source would look like. See, for a succinct example, Kloppenborg's review of Goodacre in the JBL. The entire position he takes (eg the structure of Q, or Q's sympathy with the Deuteronomist) can loosely be described as follows:

1) If we assume Q exists, Q is pretty.
2) Pretty things must exist.

This despite the fact that, as Kloppenborg himself has helped accomplish, we've increasingly made Q prettier in our reconstructions. Because, after all, it's more likely Q was pretty than not. Oh look, it's pretty! It must be real. . .but it would be prettier if it looked like this. . .oh look! It's pretty!

And 'round and 'round we go.

Some of it. Not all of it. Some he received. The same way he received material from Mark.

Yes I am. I'm also not as convinced as you are that the Q material is consistently uncharacteristically Matthean. And some elements shared between Matthew and Luke (Virgin birth, anyone?) are distinctively Matthean.

Chaucer

To mollify feelings all around, let me say that I was NOT discounting YoungAlexander's practiced eye. I was addressing my remarks to Earl Doherty, who also has a practiced eye, and thus explaining to him that I was looking for, specifically, his practiced eye too. Thought that was obvious. I don't know Greek. YoungAlexander apparently does. I don't know Greek. Earl Doherty apparently does. Consequently I was asking ED if his practiced eye could see an alternative explanation to these linguistic resemblances other than occasional Luke dependence on Matthew. For him the thematic dissimilarities discounts the stats that Gentile produces. Purely as devil's advocate, I was suggesting that the ideas and sentiments are indeed not Matthew's, but that the original (written) text preserving those sentiments might be, given Gentile's possible findings. That's all.

I don't discount possible scribal contamination with Matthean characteristics, and I'm grateful that ED and YA have brought up that possibility here.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

Rick Sumner

I want to address this one, because the fundamental problem with it is that you have assumed your conclusions. You've constructed a collection of Matthean invention that includes the "Q" sayings, but excludes everything else invented by Matthew. But without assuming Q, you have no grounds to make it.

Do you really intend to suggest that Matthew didn't invent anything related to the soteriological concerns surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection? On the contrary, he invented a lot. That "lot" just isn't included in the Q material.

You address the question of "what Matthew invented," but answer it with the question of "What did Luke copy."

But the Lukan community clearly had its own soteriological concerns, concerns that were distinct from the Matthean community in many respects. Consequently, the death and resurrection are exactly the spots we should see Luke follow his Matthean source less closely.

The problem with your argument, put most simply, is that it assumes that Matthew invented only the Q material, and consequently didn't invent anything relating to the death and resurrection. But he did, it just didn't get copied by Luke (though there is that curious agreement in the passion. . .).

As arguments for Q go, this is decidedly weak.

Before you can suggest that "lack of concern" is "un-Matthean," you need to show that Matthew, in elements redacted by himself, consistently exhibits that concern in his material. Otherwise your expectations are nothing more than the 2 Source lens you read the text through.

ETA
Not only is this weak, it's also inaccurate. It's generally held that Luke represents the more "authentic" Q tradition, precisely because the material in Matthew better serves his aims than the phrasing in Luke. If you start to suggest that the Q material in Matthew is fundamentally un-Matthean, and doesn't reflect Matthean theological and soteriological concerns, then the stratification of Q you depend on starts to take a beating.
End Edit

I'd also like to offer brief comment on your suggestion that the Q hypothesis has no serious problems.

No problems? Really? What a silly, unjustifiable piece of rhetoric that is. Without getting into the difficulties discussed, by example, by Goulder (Luke's familiarity with Matthean redactive tendencies), we can look at one really obvious problem: Nobody has ever seen it. No ancient author cites it. William of Occam tells me that's a very serious problem indeed.

No serious problem? That's the type of silly rhetoric that convinces only the converted, and precludes any "serious" discussion.

Rick Sumner

Wow. I don't believe I missed this before. It should have jumped out at me.

A guy who argues--at length--for a mythical Jesus is going to condemn adopters of a theory with a derisive bit like "fashionably radical and progressive." I'm speechless.

Give the rhetoric a rest Earl. Seriously. You'd be a lot harder to dismiss if you did away with that type of thing. The hypocrisy of it just comes off like you're on a crusade.

EarlDoherty

Actually, Rick, you should go easy on the anti-Doherty rhetoric. You're practically foaming at the mouth.

And to say that "no one has seen Q" is a serious problem with Q is a good example. I'm reminded of the Alabama school board which inserted in a textbook on evolution (I believe it was) that "no one was there when evolution reputedly took place." If you think not having a copy of Q should trump all the evidence in favor of Q and the problems with the Luke-used-Matthew scenario, I'm definitely on the wrong planet.

I'll have more to say later about your musings.

Earl Doherty

youngalexander

I was well aware that you were addressing Earl, but thort the query was decidedly unreasonable. The only 'practised eye' that I might claim would be with regard to statistics and numerical analysis of data, and its pitfalls. I do not 'know' Greek, apart from a familiarity with maths symbols & their usage.

Gentile's work is interesting & I covered the entire site, including spreadsheets etc. However, we should not read too much into the results. The only firm conclusion concerned the priority of Mark. It would have been a jolly site more exciting if the contrary had been the case. The other 'tendencies' reported were reasonable given the results, but you should note the numerous caveats both w/r the data base and especially in the more detailed discussions of results.

It is a nail in the coffin, not a crushing blow.

Rick Sumner

I give you concrete examples, you give me "I know you are but what am I?"

Really?

First of all, I'm not aware of any supporter of Q who denies that the lack of a document is problematic for the hypothesis.

But really? You're going to compare it to creationism? You do realize that evolution has fossils, right? MRSA? XDR-TB? The "nylon bug?" Actual, observable evidence? If "watching evolution" is having Q, then finding fossils analogues to having citations of Q. Except we don't have any.

Creationism and Galileo, the twins of silly analogies that are forever abused, never make sense, and never contribute anything useful. Like most silly analogies this is just ad hominem in a thin disguise. Just more rhetoric.

Is that what I said Earl? Or is it just a strawman you put together? The post is still up there, if you're inclined to scroll up and have a look.

I've been on a bit of a Synoptic kick lately, so I'll welcome the opportunity for a serious discussion on the topic. But if it's just going to be more of this pompous nonsense I probably won't indulge. If we could at least keep the QUOTE tags around my words it would be helpful, since if this is any indication I can't be confident you'll use them fairly.

Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I'm not sure that the interplay between "Jesus position" and "Q Position" holds. Where, for example, would Sanders place?

Rick Sumner

If you're not familiar with the technicalities, how do you intend to follow the debate? It seems it would be worthwhile to investigate at least somewhat before assessing the arguments raised.

While it does happen (eg Crossan on the historicity of the Good Samaritan parable), it's the exception rather than the rule that a scholar reverses themselves, especially on something so fundamental. A better indication is what the next generation of scholars holds.

The next generation would, at least at present, appear to be moving away from the 2SH and towards MwQ, though it might be too soon to read much into that, since the shift no doubt and to no small degree owes itself to Mark Goodacre's position in the still new global village.