Larry Jimenez on Who Really Wrote the Bible

[ficino]

Thanks for your parallels, KK. Just to be clear: you are raising doubts against the Q hypothesis? Do you think evidence inclines to the view that Luke is working from Matthew and not both from Q?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Thanks for your parallels, KK. Just to be clear: you are raising doubts against the Q hypothesis? Do you think evidence inclines to the view that Luke is working from Matthew and not both from Q?

Sorry, I have little knowledge of the synoptic problem and ultimately no final opinion. My casual impression is that Luke or a redactor of Luke must have known Matthew. I sympathize also with our Bernard that a possible source Q - regardless of content and form (let's say the shared material in Matthew and Luke) - is based half upon a further development of ideas of Mark.

[andrewcriddle]

I agree in principle. However, there are examples of "minor agreements" which put Q completely in question. Let me give an example.

Mark 2	Matt 12	Luke 6	Commentary
23 Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν παραπορεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν σπορίμων, καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας. 23 One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain	1 Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐπορεύθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων· οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν. 1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.	1 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ διαπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ σπορίμων, καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν. 1 On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands.	Matt & Luke added the eating of the grain
24 καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον αὐτῷ, Ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν; 24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”	2 οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἰδόντες εἶπαν αὐτῷ, Ἰδοὺ οἱ μαθηταί σου ποιοῦσιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.”	2 τινὲς δὲ τῶν Φαρισαίων εἶπαν, Τί ποιεῖτε ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν; 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?”	Matt & Luke used Mark´s “ἔλεγον“ in the form of „εἶπαν”
25 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυὶδ ὅτε χρείαν ἔσχεν καὶ ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:	3 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυὶδ ὅτε ἐπείνασεν καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him:	3 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀνέγνωτε ὃ ἐποίησεν Δαυὶδ ὅτε ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ [ὄντες], 3 And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him:	Matt & Luke skipped Mark´s “David was in need” and used Mark´s “λέγει“ in the form of „εἶπεν”
26 πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν; 26 how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”	4 πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις; 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?	4 [ὡς] εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως λαβὼν ἔφαγεν καὶ ἔδωκεν τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ μόνους τοὺς ἱερεῖς; 4 how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?”	Matt & Luke skipped Mark´s “Abiathar the high priest” and used “μόνοις/μόνους“ (only for the priests)
x	5 ἢ οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὅτι τοῖς σάββασιν οἱ ἱερεῖς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τὸ σάββατον βεβηλοῦσιν καὶ ἀναίτιοί εἰσιν; 5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?	x	x
x	6 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι τοῦ ἱεροῦ μεῖζόν ἐστιν ὧδε. 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.	x	x
x	7 εἰ δὲ ἐγνώκειτε τί ἐστιν, Ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν, οὐκ ἂν κατεδικάσατε τοὺς ἀναιτίους. 7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.	x	x
27 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Τὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο καὶ οὐχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὸ σάββατον 27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.	x	5 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, 5 And he said to them,	Matt & Luke skipped Mk 2:27, but Luke have “And he said to them,” like Mark
28 ὥστε κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”	8 κύριος γάρ ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”	5 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Κύριός ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 5 And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”	Matt & Luke used the same word order

I think it is not possible that Matthew and Luke have so many agreements independently of each other. On the other hand, we also have clear differences between Matthew and Luke, which are good arguments against the assumption of a harmonization.

One problem with the 'minor agreements' is the exact nature of the original text of the Gospels.
For example in Luke chapter 6 verse 5 the ancient manuscripts are split between the order in Matthew and the order in Mark for the saying about the son of man being Lord of the Sabbath.

In general, believers in Q probably have to accept that the standard text of Luke has been secondarily slightly harmonized to Matthew.

Andrew Criddle

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

One problem with the 'minor agreements' is the exact nature of the original text of the Gospels.
For example in Luke chapter 6 verse 5 the ancient manuscripts are split between the order in Matthew and the order in Mark for the saying about the son of man being Lord of the Sabbath.

In general, believers in Q probably have to accept that the standard text of Luke has been secondarily slightly harmonized to Matthew.

Andrew Criddle

For sure.

I want to add a personal opinion: I'm not sure, that - without Matthew and Luke - we would interpret Mark 2:23 in a way that the disciples eat the grain. Mark literally said that the disciples "began to make way by plucking the ears". It's a bit crazy.

I have the impression that Matthew has "fought hard" with the text of Mark 2.23-28 and it was not easy for him to interpret the scene in a simple and logical sense. His interpretation apparently based upon the fact that he wanted to draw a parallel to the "hungry" David in Mark 2:25.

But would we interpret Mark in the same way, if we did not have Matthew and Luke? It seems to me we would first and foremost think that Mark has a Sabbath prohibition in view, which Philo of Alexandria mentions in "On the life of Moses". (I do not mean that Mark makes direct reference to Philo.)

(20) But this is not the case with our laws which Moses has given to us; for they lead after them and influence all nations, barbarians, and Greeks, the inhabitants of continents and islands, the eastern nations and the western, Europe and Asia; in short, the whole habitable world from one extremity to the other. (21) For what man is there who does not honour that sacred seventh day, granting in consequence a relief and relaxation from labour, for himself and for all those who are near to him, and that not to free men only, but also to slaves, and even to beasts of burden; (22) for the holiday extends even to every description of animal, and to every beast whatever which performs service to man, like slaves obeying their natural master, and it affects even every species of plant and tree; for there is no shoot, and no branch, and no leaf even which it is allowed to cut or to pluck on that day, nor any fruit which it is lawful to gather; but everything is at liberty and in safety on that day, and enjoys, as it were, perfect freedom, no one ever touching them, in obedience to a universal proclamation.

The interpretation, that the disciples eat the grain, is not impossible, but also not obvious and a bit risky. That Luke interpreted the scene in exactly the same sense, seems to me a strong argument that he knew Matthew.