CX

You misunderstood me. I am a proponent of Marcan priority. I am agnostic with regard to Q (it seems plausible but without manuscript evidence it is speculation). My point was that the Marcan priority argument is reversible even though I don't find such argument compelling. The Griesbach hypothesis for example establishes the direction of dependence as being the other way round. Which is to say that it argues for Marcan dependence on GMt and GLk. I find that the problems with that hypothesis from a text critical standpoint are too great to compel me (if AMk is conflating GMt and GLk why would he leave out the significant material he did unless canonical GMt and GLk are redacted heavily from the autograph which is certainly possible). Still my argument and that of scholars against the Griesbach hypothesis is largely an argument from personal incredulity. There is no question that there is literary interdependence in the synoptic gospels. The direction of dependence however is not so iron clad as you would seem to imply. Not only that but I have found that many nontheistic proponents of Marcan priority and Q have underlying atheological biases such that Matthean priority arguments are dismissed out of hand. There are other possible arguments as well.


Consider this (note that I am playing devil's advocate here): What if the logia described by Papias were a collection of sayings and brief stories written down by the Apostle Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic, notes if you will about what he had seen and heard? Further what if ALk is using that as a source? Now suppose that AMk has GLk and this proto-Matthew in front of him while he writes and that our canonical GLk has been redacted heavily from the original version. Subsequent to this AMt polishes up the proto-Matthean source and incorporates other elements from parallel traditions. Now clearly Occam's Razor argues against such an hypothesis, but the Razor is guileline and not a law. We simply don't know for certain how the early Xian text legacy developed.

I agree that Marcan priority is the most plausible, but plausibility is not equivalent to truth. Real life is often highly implausible especially when considering something as complex as the development of the Xian text legacy.

Vorkosigan

But CX Q is a product of the same excellent text criticism that has brought us Marcan priority. I tend to buy it. Have you read Tuckett yet?

Intensity, McDonald was discussed extensively when he came out, on several lists. Since, if he is correct, the Jesus story is obviously an invention of the writer of Mark, scholars could hardly decide anything other than that he had gone way overboard.

In any case, I agree that some of it was pushing too much, but I found much of it compelling, especially the ones that fall earlier in the gospel.

Vorkosigan

Radcliffe Emerson

Ever notice too, how the gospel stories are always written in the 3rd person. Like the Pharisees were thinking to themselves how to trap Jesus, etc. How would a disciple know what someone was thinking to themselves?
The accounts don't say "Jesus told us they were thinking that", they say it like it's a novel.

CX

Don't get me wrong. I think there is a compelling argument for some common literary source underlying GMt and GLk. My only hesitation is that recent scholarship has tended to overplay the existence of a specific sayings source as if we had some other evidence for it besides text critical arguments. Some have even gone so far as to divide Q up into layers and invent a history for the so-called "Q community".

To which writing of Tuckett do you refer? Sadly his monograph on Q appears to be out of print. I would be interested to read his work though.

Ted Hoffman

CX
Thanks for clearing that up. My feathers got ruffled when you dismissed them simply as "worth noting".
It would be unrealistic to think its equivalent to truth.
Then how is it real?
The development of the christian text legacy is not complex. We just need the key. Then the mystery will unravel.
Argument from personal discomfort won the day huh?
When is it too much.
Yeah. Look at Luke (I like the rhyme in that), he starts by saying he had to investigate carefully before reporting to Theophilus. Witnesses don't investigate. Instead they are the ones to be investigated.

not a theist

But we don't have the key and unless some incredible discovery is made will probably not get the key.

Here is a site which gives some information on the possible relationships between the gospels:

<a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/" target="_blank">The Synoptic Problem Home Page</a>

Here's an <a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/enum.htm" target="_blank">enumeration of 1488 viable synoptic theories</a>.

Mark Goodacre argues against the existence of "Q" and for the Farrer Hypothesis <a href="http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/" target="_blank">here</a>.

Jayhawker Soule

And your reason for believing this would be what?

CX

Um...Xian tradition doesn't say the Luke was an eyewitness anyway. It says he was a companion of Paul (also not a witness). If you ask me the authorial attribution for GLk is the most plausible of the 4 gospels. For that matter AMk is not asserted to be an eyewitness either he is claimed to be a protegé and interpreter of Peter (which is highly dubious).

CX

Incidentally If it hasn't already been suggested the intro text by Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, is an outstanding reference on the current state of scholarship.

Ted Hoffman

not a theist
My point is that we just lack some info. Once we get it, we won't discover some elaborate plan that is so complex. We will find acts of simple men who wanted to promote their beliefs.

Thanks for the links.

Reasonabledoubt
With all the outrageous contradictions in the Gospels, the people behind them arent capable of elaborate schemes that are so complex.
Please provide sources that spell out what christian tradition says.
Average christians say the Gospels were written by Jesus disciples. That is what is indoctrinated.
Of course you and I know better.