Larry Jimenez on Who Really Wrote the Bible

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Larry Jimenez on Who Really Wrote the Bible

Post by Peter Kirby » Wed Sep 10, 2014 11:14 am

Charles Wilson wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:I'm not sure there is a smoking gun against the Farrer hypothesis, but I'm not sure there's one against Q either.
Goin' fishin' again, PK?
I am heading out to lunch with my wife and my brother at the moment.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3412
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Larry Jimenez on Who Really Wrote the Bible

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:09 pm

I have a webpage on Q: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html
I concluded Q was a separate document, compiled around 80 CE, from various sources (Greek & Aramaic), many of them with the knowledge of Mark's gospel, showing an intermediate phase between Mark's & Matthew's gospels and displaying enhancements from Mark's gospel Christology. I stated strong arguments against the Farrer's hypothesis (including dealing with the minor agreements).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Larry Jimenez on Who Really Wrote the Bible

Post by andrewcriddle » Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:11 am

ficino wrote:Can someone sum up what is wrong with the hypothesis that Matthew copies, expands on, and "corrects" Mark, and Luke copies, modifies (by subtraction and addition)/"corrects" Mark and Matthew, and there was no Q?

Someone may say, but Luke certainly would have used the unique stuff in Matthew if he'd been working from Matthew. But isn't that circular?
There is an issue of the order of the material in Luke.

When Luke is using material in Mark he mostly keeps to the Marcan order (and never rearranges the order to agree with the order in Matthew)
When Luke is using material in Matthew but not Mark the order is very different from the order in Matthew.

This suggests that although Luke was obviously familiar with material also found in Matthew he was not familiar with the order in which things are arranged in Matthew.

Andrew Criddle
Last edited by andrewcriddle on Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Larry Jimenez on Who Really Wrote the Bible

Post by ficino » Thu Sep 11, 2014 1:35 pm

Hi Andrew, the argument you outline appears also in toejam's linked article on Q. It's one of the attacks on Farrer shown there. But can't the denier of Q just argue that Luke chose to preserve the order of events along roughly the narrative line of Mark? That's why I suspected that these arguments become circular. Ditching Q at least has an advantage of economy.

User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Larry Jimenez on Who Really Wrote the Bible

Post by toejam » Thu Sep 11, 2014 1:54 pm

^We shouldn't have to ditch or affirm Q. Both the Two-source and the Farrier hypotheses have their merits and their potential weak spots.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208

ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Larry Jimenez on Who Really Wrote the Bible

Post by ficino » Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:33 pm

^^ OK, but I don't know where you're going with your question, toejam. Either there was a Q or there was not. Maybe the question won't be settled. But what is the point of a scholar's continuing to entertain two mutually incompatible hypotheses, if s/he wants to do further work on the synoptic problem? That seems like Harry Houdini's trying to explain phenomena in a seance while saying that both the hypothesis of spiritualism and the hypothesis of fraud have their strong and weak spots. A given research project may not win the day, but I don't see how it will reach strong conclusions if the researcher accounts for the texts from premises that include both "Q" AND "not Q." It seems to me that either such a project will devolve into a glorified review of research with a few points about particular passages, or one will find a third way, or one will go to the mat and affirm or deny Q's place in the construction.

Maybe there's a fourth way: not to deny Q, just to say that "Q" is ill-defined. But that approach would seem to end up effectively dropping Q.

???

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2836
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Larry Jimenez on Who Really Wrote the Bible

Post by DCHindley » Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:03 pm

ficino wrote:OK, but I don't know where you're going with your question, toejam. Either there was a Q or there was not. Maybe the question won't be settled. But what is the point of a scholar's continuing to entertain two mutually incompatible hypotheses, if s/he wants to do further work on the synoptic problem?

Maybe there's a fourth way: not to deny Q, just to say that "Q" is ill-defined. But that approach would seem to end up effectively dropping Q.
Personally, I do not understand all the hand wringing and outright fear the Q hypotheses seems to evoke in folks. There is nothing ill-defined in the theory that a common document lies behind the rather strikingly similar double tradition material of Matthew and Luke. "Minor agreements" do not negate the strong and sometimes verbatim similarities.

Back when I first started hearing strong anti-Q sentiments the concern seemed to be voiced that the "Q" hypothesis was not in agreement with Church tradition (in which Matthew was written first, in Hebrew, Mark was the interpreter of Peter, etc, etc). I didn't recognize it at the time, but what I was seeing was a return to Scholasticism, in which Church literature contained axioms of absolute truth and all deductions had to be based upon them.

One can say that Goulder is an atheist, etc, but there is a faith component at work here.

DCH

ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Larry Jimenez on Who Really Wrote the Bible

Post by ficino » Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:56 am

DCHindley wrote: There is nothing ill-defined in the theory that a common document lies behind the rather strikingly similar double tradition material of Matthew and Luke. "Minor agreements" do not negate the strong and sometimes verbatim similarities.



DCH
Hi David, when I threw out the phrase "ill-defined," I wasn't applying it to a theory (hypothesis?) that a common document lies behind the "double tradition." I was applying it to "Q" itself, supposing that it is the reconstruction of that proposed document that is ill-defined. That's because your magisterial overview of different scholars' reconstructions of Q made it appear that there is not consensus on what Q contained. Therefore, it seems that if researchers dispute whether a given pericope stood in Q, we will fall into circularity if we try to argue from the Q hypothesis that Luke got that pericope from Q and not from Matthew.

I say all this not having done a study of the material. I'm only thinking about methodology in the abstract. So perhaps there are not enough disputed pericopae to make "Q" viciously ill-defined for the most part.

Cheers, f

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Larry Jimenez on Who Really Wrote the Bible

Post by andrewcriddle » Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:11 am

ficino wrote:
DCHindley wrote: There is nothing ill-defined in the theory that a common document lies behind the rather strikingly similar double tradition material of Matthew and Luke. "Minor agreements" do not negate the strong and sometimes verbatim similarities.



DCH
Hi David, when I threw out the phrase "ill-defined," I wasn't applying it to a theory (hypothesis?) that a common document lies behind the "double tradition." I was applying it to "Q" itself, supposing that it is the reconstruction of that proposed document that is ill-defined. That's because your magisterial overview of different scholars' reconstructions of Q made it appear that there is not consensus on what Q contained. Therefore, it seems that if researchers dispute whether a given pericope stood in Q, we will fall into circularity if we try to argue from the Q hypothesis that Luke got that pericope from Q and not from Matthew.

I say all this not having done a study of the material. I'm only thinking about methodology in the abstract. So perhaps there are not enough disputed pericopae to make "Q" viciously ill-defined for the most part.

Cheers, f
I tend to agree that arguments that Luke knew both Matthew and Q have major methodological problems.

I don't think that the question whether it is more likely that a/ Luke knew Matthew or b/ did not know Matthew but did know a document used by Matthew, is methodologically problematic in the same way.

Andrew Criddle

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1386
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Larry Jimenez on Who Really Wrote the Bible

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:04 am

DCHindley wrote:Personally, I do not understand all the hand wringing and outright fear the Q hypotheses seems to evoke in folks. There is nothing ill-defined in the theory that a common document lies behind the rather strikingly similar double tradition material of Matthew and Luke. "Minor agreements" do not negate the strong and sometimes verbatim similarities.
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.

Post Reply