"Q" comes form Marcion

[rgprice]

@Ken that is indeed a compelling presentation of sayings, but it is clearly selective. Much of the Sermon on the Plain and the Lord's Prayer don't even appear in the set. I'm not saying that they aren't onto something, but it's a selective presentation of Q sayings.

And certainly we should recognize that what is called "Q" need not all come from some single "source" or have been produced by a single writer. "Q" is just what is in common between Luke and Matthew and not in Mark. That material may well itself be the product of multiple revisions and alterations to a document that was later shared by the writers of Luke and Matthew.

In other words, from Mark some new version of the narrative was produced, and that version could have undergone any number of revisions by any number of editors before it was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke, so "Q" need not be some set of passages that come from a single source. Indeed the nature of Q, with its inclusion of the Temptation and various other scenes, indicates exactly this.

The material shared between Luke and Matthew itself is a product of multiple hands.

So I guess the question would be: Was Marcion one of those hands?

Certainly its possible, but maybe its not the best possible explanation. But its also important to make sure we have a solid understanding of Marcion's actual theology, because *Ev does include many of these passages about things like division, woes, etc. For example BeDuhn's *Ev has:

49“I came to throw a fire upon the earth, and I wish
that it were already kindled. 50I have a baptism with
which to be baptized, and what (more) do I wish if already
I have accomplished it? I have a cup to drink, and what (more)
do I wish if already I shall have filled it? 51Do you suppose
that I arrived to throw peace on the earth? Not at all, I am
telling you, but division. 53They will be divided, a father
against a son and a son against a father, a mother against
a daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-
in-law against a daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law
against a mother-in-law.”

Certainly Klinghardt and Vinzent have dealt with these passages, which are all a part of *Ev. I'll have to see what they say about them.

[davidmartin]

TL;DR version: The Evangelion contains Double Tradition material. So what? It also contains Triple Tradition and Special Lukan material.

which is what *ev prioritists see as the other gospels drawing from *ev

you mention in a previous post the theory Marcion adopted a gospel that wasn't specifically Marcionite
If Marcion embraced the epistles and when he did so did not find a gospel came with them and were sans-gospel writings then he'd be forced to bring in one he found elsewhere. This makes sense.

which is why the gospels are interesting as they contain pre-epistle material that was later incorporated with the epistle collection so we can find out something of the alternative gospels that were around before the epistles came along and were in competition with

[Ken Olson]

@Ken that is indeed a compelling presentation of sayings, but it is clearly selective. Much of the Sermon on the Plain and the Lord's Prayer don't even appear in the set. I'm not saying that they aren't onto something, but it's a selective presentation of Q sayings.

This is getting surreal. You presented a small selection of passages that 2DHers commonly attribute to Q, and when I point out the numerous passages from that hypothetical document that do not fit your characterization of Q, you point out that what I presented is 'clearly selective'. Yes, they are passages selected to show that your characterization of Q was selective. Your characterization of Q does not fit Q as scholars who work on Q understand it.

If what you are talking about is the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6.20-49) and the Lord's Prayer (do you mean Luke's version in Luke 11.2-4), please say that. Not 'Q'.

And certainly we should recognize that what is called "Q" need not all come from some single "source" or have been produced by a single writer. "Q" is just what is in common between Luke and Matthew and not in Mark. That material may well itself be the product of multiple revisions and alterations to a document that was later shared by the writers of Luke and Matthew.

What is called Q by the scholars working on the basis of the Two Document Hypothesis, including especially the International Q Project, which has published a text of Q, is that it is a single document.

In other words, from Mark some new version of the narrative was produced, and that version could have undergone any number of revisions by any number of editors before it was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke, so "Q" need not be some set of passages that come from a single source. Indeed the nature of Q, with its inclusion of the Temptation and various other scenes, indicates exactly this.

What you are talking about is commonly called the Double Tradition (pericopes shared by Matthew and Luke that are not in Mark). Why are you insisting on calling it Q, which is a document hypothesized to explain the why Matthew and Luke have shared material not in Mark. I grant that many have objected to the term Double Tradition on the grounds it privileges material common to Matthew and Luke but not in Mark over other combinations that might also be called double traditions (e.g, shared by Matthew and Mark but not in Luke) and it also leaves the so-called Mark-Q overlaps as a sort of nebulous category (Matthew and Luke have major agreements not in Mark, but Mark does have a version, as in the Temptation or Beelezebul passages).

The material shared between Luke and Matthew itself is a product of multiple hands.

Maybe, though I think it more likely that Luke knew Matthew directly and used material taken from it (i.e. the Farrer theory). But if what you are talking about is the material shared by Luke and Matthew not in Mark, please call it that (or the Double Tradition). You keep calling it Q even though you reject the definition of Q used by advocates of the Q theory.

So I guess the question would be: Was Marcion one of those hands?

Maybe? At present, I think more likely not.

Certainly its possible, but maybe its not the best possible explanation. But its also important to make sure we have a solid understanding of Marcion's actual theology, because *Ev does include many of these passages about things like division, woes, etc.

Yes, it would be desirable to have a solid understanding of Marcion's actual theology. So let's look at a selection from the Tertullian passage you quoted:

This will turn out an imaginary goodness, a phantom of discipline, perfunctory in duty, careless in sin. Listen, you sinners; and you who have not yet come to this, hear, that you may attain to such a pass! A better god has been discovered, who never takes offense, is never angry, never inflicts punishment, who has prepared no fire in hell, no gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness! He is purely and simply good. He indeed forbids all delinquency, but only in word. He is in you, if you are willing to pay him homage, for the sake of appearances, that you may seem to honour God; for your fear he does not want.

Tertullian does not say he is quoting Marcion directly. Also, there are passages attested to be in the Evangelion that contradict this understanding of Marcion's theology. So what is more likely: this is Marcion's actual theology or this is Tertullian's polemical misstatement or parody of Marcion's theology with the purpose of making Marcion sound ridiculous and setting up a straw man Tertullian can easily knock down?

Best,

Ken