Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3935
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Bernard Muller »

Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

A) The "missing block"
It has been noticed gLuke does not incorporate any material from gMark 6:47 to 8:27a (except for one saying: see next note), a total of 74.5 verses. It is called the great omission (the "missing block").
This includes, in succession, 'Jesus walks on water', 'Jesus in the region of Gennesaret', 'clean and unclean', 'the faith of the Syro-Phoenician woman', 'the healing of the deaf and mute man', 'Jesus feeds the four thousand', 'the leaven of the Pharisees' and 'the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida'.
The next largest block of consecutive verses not included in GLuke is the 13 verses of 'John the Baptist beheaded' (gMark 6:17-29). But the execution of John is mentioned in gLuke 9:7-9, at the same corresponding location, right after 'Jesus sends out the twelve' (gMark 6:6a-13, gLuke 9:1-6) and just before 'the miraculous feeding of the five thousand' (gMark 6:30-44, gLuke 9:10-17).

Let's look at the "missing block" (gMark 6:45-8.27a and also gMatthew 14:24-16:13a) in gLuke.

Walking on Water:
NOT in gLuke, but in gMark 6:45-52 & gMatthew 14:14-33 (both in "missing block")

Healings at Gennesaret:
NOT in gLuke, but in gMark 6:53-56 & gMatthew 14:34-36 (both in "missing block")

What Defiles A Person (Clean And Unclean):
NOT in gLuke, but in gMark 7:1-23 & gMatthew 15:10-20 (both in "missing block")

Syrophoenician Woman:
NOT in gLuke, but in gMark 7:24-30 & gMatthew 15:21-28 (both in "missing block")

Feeding of the Four Thousand:
NOT in gLuke, but in gMark 8:1-10 & gMatthew 15:32-38 (both in "missing block")

Pharisees Seek A Sign:
In gMark 8:11-12 (in "missing block") and (considerably extended with common elements: see next note) gLuke 11:29 & gMatthew 12:38-42

Leaven of the Pharisees:
In gLuke 12:1 & gMark 8:14-21 & gMatthew 16:6-12,11b (both in "missing block")

Blind Men of Bethsaida:
NOT in gLuke & gMatthew, but in gMark 8:22-26 (in "missing block")

It certainly looks that "Luke" did not know about the "missing block" in gMark & gMatthew (for gMark, I explained why the "missing block" was expurgated from Luke's copy: http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html).

Was the "missing block" lacking from gMatthew?
OR
Was "Luke" without the whole of gMatthew?

Note: If "Luke" did not know about the "missing block" from gMark & gMatthew, then from where he/she would get the saying about the 'Leaven of the Pharisees'? From a source like Q.

B) 'Ierousalem' in gMatthew
The authors of gospels made use of two spellings for Jerusalem, 'Hierosolyma' and 'Ierousalem'. "Luke" & "Mark" employed both, and "John" used only 'Hierosolyma'. What about "Matthew"? He utilized 'Hierosolyma' eleven times and 'Ierousalem' twice in 23:37. It just happens gMatthew 23:37 has a the counterpart in gLuke 13:34 which also features 'Ierousalem' twice. And all the eleven occurrences of 'Hierosolyma' in gMatthew are in Markan or Matthean material.
Therefore, with "Matthew" being consistent with 'Hierosolyma', gMatthew 23:37 (& gLuke 13:34) is very likely to have been copied from a different source, Q: for twelve verses, there is only a 8% chance that would happen by coincidence.

Note: gMatthew 23:37 (in the Temple) is located differently of gLuke 13:34 (on the way to Jerusalem). Nothing to conclude here, but if both sayings were similarly placed in one of the two locations, then that would be a strong argument for "Luke" knowing about gMatthew (or "Matthew" knowing about gLuke).
Also the Centurion in Capernaum pericope is differently textually placed in gLuke 7:6-10 (after the miracles in Capernaum) and gMatthew 8:5-13 (before the miracles in Capernaum).

C) Aramaic evidence
a) Let's consider:
gLuke 11:41a: "But give alms inwardly, and behold, all things are clean to you."
A scholar, Wellhausen, suggested that the Aramaic word dakkau (to cleanse, purify) was misread as zakkau (to give alms)
Then, if gLuke 11:41 was a mistranslation from the Aramaic, we would have near concordance with:
gMatthew 23:26 "... First cleanse the inside of the cup, that the outside also may be clean"
Let's compare it with the "corrected":
gLuke 11:41a "But cleanse inwardly, and behold, all things are clean to you."
The "corrected" version would make more sense because, in gLuke 11:39b, what is inward is "greed and wickedness" and NOT goods for the poor:
gLuke 11:39-40a "... Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! ..."
Let's compare it to the parallel Q passage in gMatthew:
gMatthew 23:25 "... you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence."

b) Let's also consider:
gLuke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother ... brothers and sisters ..., he cannot be my disciple."
First, let's examine the parallel saying from "Matthew":
gMatthew 10:37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."
In the later gospel, "hates" is replaced by "loves", the negation removed and a "more" clause added. As a result, the saying makes some sense, and very much in tune with:
gMark 3:32-35 "...they said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You." But He answered them, saying, "Who is My mother, or My brothers?" And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.""
Jesus prefers believers to his own blood family and expects the same from others:
gMark 10:29-30 "... Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left ... brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children ..., for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive ... brothers and sisters and mothers and children ..."

But "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother ... brothers and sisters ..., he cannot be my disciple." (gLuke 14:26) is probably the ugliest statements put in the mouth of Jesus in all the gospels.

Then, according to Jack Kilmon:
"The Aramaic of Luke's source document, in part, was: "whoever comes to me and does not "hate" his father and mother ...
The word "hate" in Aramaic, however, is an idiom meaning "to set aside." The saying was originally to SET ASIDE your mother, father, brothers, sisters, to follow Jesus ..."

If "corrected", then we would have:
gLuke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not set aside his father and mother ..., his brothers and sisters, ... he cannot be my disciple."
This "corrected" version would be very close of:
gMatthew 10:37a "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me ..."
Now, let's go back to:
gLuke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-- yes, even his own life --he cannot be my disciple."
It seems that "Luke" added "yes, even his own life" to attenuate the awful idea of hate towards the family members. Obviously, the Q passage was deemed embarrassing. Consequently, in order to soften the blow, the "hate" was redistributed to everyone in the family, including the would-be disciple. That does alleviate the notion of hate from him to his relatives.

Notes:
a) "Luke" could have replaced "does not hate" by something like "does not set aside" or "prefers", but did not. Instead the author added up "yes, even his own life". That shows that "Luke" was reluctant to change the wording of a Q saying. Consequently, the "correction" was made by a small insertion.
b) The aforementioned parallels in this section are differently textually placed in gLuke & gMatthew.

Conclusion for C):
With the "corrections", gLuke 11:41a & gLuke 14:26 are very close to passages appearing only in gMatthew (gMatthew 23:26 & 10:37). And the errors are easily explained from the translation of Aramaic to Greek. In any case, "Luke" did not copy the aforementioned sayings from gMatthew but from a different source such as Q, which was partly written in Aramaic.

Note: let's compare gMatthew 6:12 "Forgive us our debts ..." with gLuke 11:4 "Forgive us our sins ..."
"debts" & "sins" appear to be a translation of the Aramaic word 'xwbyn', which means 'debts' but also 'sins'. It seems the "Lord's prayer" was first composed in Aramaic but got translated differently.

D) gLuke against itself and showing ignorance of gMatthew
"Luke" reproduced a Q saying dead against the author's Gentile outlook (gLuke 2:29-32, 7:4-10; Acts 10:1-48,11:1-18, etc.):
gLuke 16:17 "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." (parallel in gMatthew 5:18)

Note: "least stroke of a pen. The Greek word for this phrase means "horn" and was used to designate the slight embellishment or extension of certain letters of the Hebrew alphabet." (NIV Study Bible, note on gMatthew 5:18)

If "Luke" had gMatthew instead of Q, why would he/she insert what hurts and ignore what pleases?
However, if "Luke" did not know GMatthew and felt obligated to incorporate all the Q sayings (let's say, because they had high credibility in Luke's community), the problem is solved.

How can it be explained Luke's rewriting from gMatthew what follows?
From:
"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. ..." (gMatthew 10:37)
To
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother ..., he cannot be my disciple." (gLuke 14:26)
considering "Luke" reproduced "honor your father and mother" from GMark (gLuke 18:20/gMark10:19) and "love your enemies" from Q (gLuke 6:27,35/Matthew 5:44).

Note: the aforementioned parallel in this section is differently textually placed in gLuke & gMatthew.

As I said, "Luke" accepted Q sayings, even when they hurt.

And why "Luke" did not implement Matthean material most agreeable, such as:
- gMatthew 20:1-16, never too late to join (or rejoin) the Christian brotherhood (see gLuke 15:11-32)
- gMatthew 25:35-45, charity to the destitute and poor, in order to enter the Kingdom (see gLuke 6:34-35,10:30-37,11:5-8,14:13-14,16:9,19-28,19:8-9)
- gMatthew 27:19, a Roman woman declaring Jesus as a "righteous/just" ('dikaios') man (see gLuke 23:47, a centurion saying the same). This could not have been missed by "Luke", considering the pro-feminist and pro-Roman stance of the gospel & 'Acts' (as explained in http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html).

E) Minor agreements between gLuke and gMatthew against gMark
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis:
"The "minor agreements"—the word "minor" here is not intended to be belittling—are those points where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark (for example, the mocking question at the beating of Jesus, "Who is it that struck you?", found in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark). The "minor agreements" thus call into question the proposition that Matthew and Luke knew Mark but not each other."

Let's look at the example given by Wikipedia:
- gMark 14:65 "And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows."
- gLuke 22:63-64 "And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy: who is he that struck you?"
- gMatthew 26:67-68 "Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, you Christ: who is he that struck you?"

The three gospels have in common Jesus being beaten and "prophecy" but both gLuke and gMatthew add up "saying" and "who is he that struck you?"

Let's now look at the Lord's prayer:
- gMark 11:25 "And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." and 14:38 "Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
- gLuke 11:2-4 "And he said to them, "When you pray, say: "Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread;
and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive every one who is indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation
- gMatthew 6:9-13 "Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Your kingdom come. Yours will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread;
And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors;
And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil."

The three gospels have in common "forgive, if you have anything against any one", "Father" and "not enter into temptation", but both gLuke and gMatthew add up "hallowed be your name", "Your kingdom come" and "Give us each day our daily bread".

In both examples "Luke" and "Matthew" used gMark, but supplemented it with common elements.

Note: the aforementioned parallels in this section are differently textually placed in gLuke & gMatthew.

However the "official" definition of Q is about:
Common material used by "gMatthew" and "gLuke" but not found in gMark.
But the common material may include also elements from gMark (as demonstrated).

So I think the conventional definition should be modified as such: Q is part of the common material found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke without, or with, textual relationship in the gospel of Mark.
Q-->gLuke & gMatthew
OR
gMark-->Q-->gLuke & gMatthew

When Q is intermediary between gMark and gluke & gMatthew, "minor agreements" can be explained by the Q author getting a passage from gMark, then injecting in it new wording not in gMark, which got copied by "Luke" & "Matthew" (with both, most of the time, still adding up more dissimilar items, including from gMark passage).

Therefore, Q would also include "minor agreements", strengthening Q as being a document instead of doing the opposite.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source:
"Specifically, there are 347 instances (by Neirynck's count) where one or more words are added to the Markan text in both Matthew and Luke; these are called the "minor agreements" against Mark. Some 198 instances involve one word, 82 involve two words, 35 three, 16 four, and 16 instances involve five or more words in the extant texts of Matthew and Luke as compared to Markan passages."

Note: Christopher J. Monaghan has considerably less minor agreements than Neirynck:https://repository.divinity.edu.au/2941 ... 6_Sept.pdf
This book also shows that the scholars who studied the minor agreements did not agree with each other on many items and lead them to different overall conclusions.
And many items are contentious and rather puerile, in my view.
As Monaghan wrote in one of his summary (page 60): "The question that naturally arises is that of where
one draws the line, and on what basis."

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3935
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Bernard Muller »

I know you are waiting for my final section ;) So here it is, and waiting for your critique:

E) Minor agreements between gLuke and gMatthew against gMark
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis:
"The "minor agreements"—the word "minor" here is not intended to be belittling—are those points where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark (for example, the mocking question at the beating of Jesus, "Who is it that struck you?", found in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark). The "minor agreements" thus call into question the proposition that Matthew and Luke knew Mark but not each other."

Let's look at the example given by Wikipedia:
- gMark 14:65 "And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows."
- gLuke 22:63-64 "And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy: who is he that struck you?"
- gMatthew 26:67-68 "Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, you Christ: who is he that struck you?"

The three gospels have in common Jesus being beaten and "prophecy" but both gLuke and gMatthew add up "saying" and "who is he that struck you?"

Let's now look at the Lord's prayer:
- gMark 11:25 "And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." and 14:38 "Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
- gLuke 11:2-4 "And he said to them, "When you pray, say: "Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread;
and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive every one who is indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation
- gMatthew 6:9-13 "Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Your kingdom come. Yours will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread;
And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors;
And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil."

The three gospels have in common "forgive, if you have anything against any one", "Father" and "not enter into temptation", but both gLuke and gMatthew add up "hallowed be your name", "Your kingdom come" and "Give us each day our daily bread".

In both examples "Luke" and "Matthew" used gMark, but supplemented it with common elements.

However the conventional definition of Q is about:
Common material used by "gMatthew" and "gLuke" but not found in gMark.
But the common material may include also elements from gMark (as demonstrated).

So I think the conventional definition should be modified as such: Q is part of the common material found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke without, or with, some "root" textual relationship in the gospel of Mark.
Q-->gLuke & gMatthew
OR
gMark-->Q-->gLuke & gMatthew

When Q is intermediary between gMark and gluke & gMatthew, "minor agreements" can be explained by the Q author getting a passage from gMark, then injecting in it new wording not in gMark, which got copied by "Luke" & "Matthew" (with one or both, most of the time, still adding up more dissimilar items, including from gMark "root" passage).

Therefore, Q would also include "minor agreements", strengthening Q as being a document instead of doing the opposite.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source:
"Specifically, there are 347 instances (by Neirynck's count) where one or more words are added to the Markan text in both Matthew and Luke; these are called the "minor agreements" against Mark. Some 198 instances involve one word, 82 involve two words, 35 three, 16 four, and 16 instances involve five or more words in the extant texts of Matthew and Luke as compared to Markan passages."

Note: Christopher J. Monaghan has considerably less minor agreements than Neirynck: https://repository.divinity.edu.au/2941 ... 6_Sept.pdf
This book also shows that the scholars who studied the minor agreements did not agree with each other on many items and lead them to different overall conclusions.
And many items are contentious and rather puerile, in my view.
As Monaghan wrote in one of his summary (page 60): "The question that naturally arises is that of where
one draws the line, and on what basis."

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by hakeem »

The "Q" hypothesis is seriously flawed. Once it is admitted that the authors of gLuke and gMatthew used gMark then it cannot be shown that the author of Luke could not have used gMatthew where they both agree. In addition the "Q" hypothesis is based on the fallacy that all events in the Gospels require a source. No independent source is required for fictional accounts in the Gospels since the very authors themselves could have fabricated fictional events themselves.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5584
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Peter Kirby »

hakeem wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:02 am The "Q" hypothesis is seriously flawed.
Possibly.
hakeem wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:02 amOnce it is admitted that the authors of gLuke and gMatthew used gMark then it cannot be shown that the author of Luke could not have used gMatthew where they both agree.
Wrong. Non sequitur.
hakeem wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:02 amIn addition the "Q" hypothesis is based on the fallacy that all events in the Gospels require a source.
Wrong. Straw man.
Ken Olson
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Ken Olson »

Bernard Muller wrote:
I know you are waiting for my final section  So here it is, and waiting for your critique:
I thought you were going to cover the Mark-Q overlap passages (known on the Farrer theory as the triple tradition passages for which Luke followed Matthew rather than Mark as a source). No matter.
When Q is intermediary between gMark and gluke & gMatthew, "minor agreements" can be explained by the Q author getting a passage from gMark, then injecting in it new wording not in gMark, which got copied by "Luke" & "Matthew" (with both, most of the time, still adding up more dissimilar items, including from gMark passage).

Therefore, Q would also include "minor agreements", strengthening Q as being a document instead of doing the opposite.
Bernard,

Let’s call the document you are hypothesizing B for Bernard, since M is already taken for Matthew’s special material and Q, as generally used in New Testament scholarship for the last century, refers to a hypothetical sayings source of 200 to 250 verses. What does B look like?

It has all the double tradition material (i.e., the material common to Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark).

It has the Minor Agreement “who is it that struck you?” that is found in the scene of Jesus’s trial before the Sanhedrin. So it must have the trial scene and therefore a Passion Narrative.

It also has all the other Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the triple tradition, and since these Minor Agreements probably weren’t just floating around by themselves but were set in contexts, this means every pericope that has a minor agreement (which is most of them) in the triple tradition was also in B.

So, unlike Q, B was an entire gospel later than and dependent on Mark, containing the triple tradition and the double tradition, and all the Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke.

We already have two documents that fit that description, called Matthew and Luke. Why should we hypothesize a third? And why did the B gospel disappear?

It isn’t as though the solution you are suggesting has never occurred to anyone. In fact, it occurs almost reflexively to everyone during discussions of the synoptic problem. Numerous times in discussions of the synoptic problem when I’ve pointed out that Luke has something in Matthew, I’ve been asked by undergraduates and professors from outside the field of New Testament but in a related field (generally OT or Jewish studies), “How do you know it wasn’t in Q?”

And the answer to that is that I don’t, but to be credible, a hypothetical document has to be demonstrably distinguishable from a document we already have. If you continually reconstruct Q to look like Matthew, then people will begin to wonder why you don’t just call it Matthew (to be fair there are a handful of scholars that make the same case for Luke). Your B (expanded Q) erases may of the distinctions between traditional Q and Matthew. Rather than solve the Achilles Heel of the 2dH (by the way, it’s 2DH people who think the Minor Agreements are the biggest problem for their theory, not Farrer people) you’ve created a huge new problem.

One of the reasons I’ve been discussing alternating primitivity (i.e., the claim that sometimes Matthew, sometimes Luke has the earlier form of a given pericope) is that that’s one of the few arguments that tries to show that the so-called Q source isn’t just Matthew (or possibly Luke) by another name. That’s why I’ve been arguing that I know of several strong cases for Matthew’s greater primitivity and zero for Luke’s. It’s not that I’m ever going to prove Q did not exist (how can you show a hypothetical source that can always change to look more like Matthew did not exist?), it’s that the more you reconstruct Q to look like Matthew, the less need you have to call it Q instead of just Matthew. That is why Farrer titled his paper, “On Dispensing with Q” instead of “On Disproving Q.”

Recommended:

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (free!)

http://www.markgoodacre.org/maze/


E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (1989)

https://www.amazon.com/Studying-Synopti ... 939&sr=8-1
And many items are contentious and rather puerile, in my view.
*Must .. restrain … myself*

Best,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1689
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Bernard Muller wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:12 am I know you are waiting for my final section ;) So here it is, and waiting for your critique:
***
Let's look at the example given by Wikipedia:
- gMark 14:65 "And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows."
- gLuke 22:63-64 "And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy: who is he that struck you?"
- gMatthew 26:67-68 "Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, you Christ: who is he that struck you?"

The three gospels have in common Jesus being beaten and "prophecy" but both gLuke and gMatthew add up "saying" and "who is he that struck you?"
Bernard, could you please leave some stuff for the rest of us to figure out?

I have never been fond of "Q" (I never thought they would find the Higgs Boson either.). This extremely nice Post has given me some pause, however. My fear concerning "Q" was that it might be Anti-Semitic in nature since that might imply that the Original Story (Always important to me) could not have been composed by "Them dumm Jews" but had to have been composed by Smart Non-Jews to make the whole thing work. "Aramaic material, huh?"

Thank you very much, Bernard.
***
Onto the Subject Material:

John 18: 19 - 23 (RSV):

[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[20] Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.
[21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"

Somewhere, back in the Stacks, is a Post concerning this Passage in John. The Passage is awkward. The Dialogue is not smooth. Something appears misplaced.

If you exchange the positions of the verses you can get to this:

[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.

OK so far...

[21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."

This makes sense. The HP asks and Jesus answers. Then:

[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"

This placement also makes sense. One of the "Officials" thinks that answer is a little on the Smart-Ass side. He strikes Jesus.

[20] Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.
[23] Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"

"Jesus answered him..." is doubled. The change is Intentional. One might even switch 20 and 23 and combine the result into one Saying (Over 2 verses here):

[23] Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
[20]"I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.

The rearranged Passage reads thus:

[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
[20]"I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly."

This reads in a very smooth manner. There is, however, a problem. It points to uncomfortable facts: Jesus spoke openly in the Temple and to all the Jews who came there. Further, Jesus said nothing secretly.
***
What is going on here?

I believe that this Section was very important in the Original and was seen as Necessary for Inclusion in the NT but also had to be Deflected from its Original Point. The Original appears to point to the idea that the Message was well known to all who heard and was willingly received by those who heard, i.e. "The Jews". That cannot be. The Message Must be about the person, the savior/god Jesus. "...And we all know about Them Jews...". So the John Passage gets a slight edit to change the Intent.

This would have a greater meaning for a "Q" Document, however. "What was the Intent of the Passage in "Q"?"
Did it contain the same Material as in John? That would imply that "Q" was an intermediate Document, giving Original Material that had been already Processed for later Consumption in a Luke or a Matthew.

This requires further examination of John as "Corrector" of the Synoptics again. Not that John knew "Q" but why would the Corrections be needed in the first place, from a Book that was as hostile to Jewish Sensibilities as John is?

"Can you help me out here, Bernard?"

CW

[Edit Note: I stated above that verse 19 reads OK but if you look at it carefully, it reads as a "Summary". There may be much that is left out from a transition from a posited "Original Story" to the result we find in John, in this case.]
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:48 pm, edited 4 times in total.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by hakeem »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sourc ... %20as%20Q.
The "Two-source Hypothesis" proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark and a second hypothetical document called "Q" as a source. Q was conceived as the most likely explanation behind the common material (mostly sayings) found in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke but not in Mark.

My position is that the proposed use of the hypothetical "Q" material by the authors of gMatthew and gLuke is flawed since it is admitted that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke used gMark.

The stories of Jesus of Nazareth in gMatthew and gLuke are not historical accounts so no independent source is needed by any author to fabricate stories of Jesus. The author of gLuke could have merely copied material from gMatthew the very same way the author copied gMark.

The very story of Jesus in gMark did not require an early source since it is in effect a fictional account which could be made up by the author.

Historians writing about past events certainly require sources but not those who write obvious fictional accounts.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3935
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ken Olson,
It has the Minor Agreement “who is it that struck you?” that is found in the scene of Jesus’s trial before the Sanhedrin. So it must have the trial scene and therefore a Passion Narrative.
The location and time of the scene was provided by gMark 14:65.
It also has all the other Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the triple tradition, and since these Minor Agreements probably weren’t just floating around by themselves but were set in contexts, this means every pericope that has a minor agreement (which is most of them) in the triple tradition was also in B.
Good question. I only looked at two minor agreements cases ("who struck you" and the Lord's prayer).
For the Lord's prayer, in gMark (11:25) it is textually placed in the temple, on the 2nd day in Jerusalem. The second part (14:38) is right before the arrest, to his disciples only.
For gLuke, much earlier, and to his disciples only. For gMatthew, also much earlier, to a crowd, in the discourse on the mountain.
So, no conclusion for now, I have to do more research.
So, unlike Q, B was an entire gospel later than and dependent on Mark, containing the triple tradition and the double tradition, and all the Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke.
No, according to my two examples, I cannot conclude that, but rather opine the opposite.
But I need more research for any conclusion.
About the triple tradition: it is when gLuke and gMatthew copy gMark, But doing so, do not show any common element between themselves. That's very different of the minor agreements which have common elements in both gLuke & gMatthew, which are not found in the gMark "root" (gMk-->Q-->gLk & gMt).
I do not deal with tripartite sayings/narratives.
And the answer to that is that I don’t, but to be credible, a hypothetical document has to be demonstrably distinguishable from a document we already have. If you continually reconstruct Q to look like Matthew, then people will begin to wonder why you don’t just call it Matthew (to be fair there are a handful of scholars that make the same case for Luke). Your B (expanded Q) erases may of the distinctions between traditional Q and Matthew. Rather than solve the Achilles Heel of the 2dH (by the way, it’s 2DH people who think the Minor Agreements are the biggest problem for their theory, not Farrer people) you’ve created a huge new problem.

I don't reconstruct Q to look like gMatthew, but select the Q sayings/narratives as ones which have common elements in both gLuke & gMatthew, which are not found in the gMark "root" (gMk-->Q-->gLk & gMt) if any (Q-->gLk & gMt).
I don't see why I created a problem. I rather think I solved any problem.
I know of several strong cases for Matthew’s greater primitivity and zero for Luke’s.
What are these strong cases?

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3935
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ken Olson,
I thought you were going to cover the Mark-Q overlap passages (known on the Farrer theory as the triple tradition passages for which Luke followed Matthew rather than Mark as a source). No matter.
I did not cover that in my latest post.
I put the Mark-Q overlaps in the category: gMark-->Q-->gLuke & gMatthew.
If you think "Matthew" created these overlaps, then why not a Q contributor doing the same.

Something new I added up to my OP page you might not know about:

Therefore, with "Matthew" being consistent with 'Hierosolyma', gMatthew 23:37 (& gLuke 13:34) is very likely to have been copied from a different source, Q: for twelve verses, there is only a 8% chance that would happen by coincidence.

Note: gMatthew 23:37 (in the Temple) is located differently of gLuke 13:34 (on the way to Jerusalem). Nothing to conclude here, but if both sayings were similarly placed in one of the two locations, then that would be a strong argument for "Luke" knowing about gMatthew (or "Matthew" knowing about gLuke).
Also the Centurion in Capernaum pericope is differently textually placed in gLuke 7:6-10 (after the miracles in Capernaum) and gMatthew 8:5-13 (before the miracles in Capernaum).

Cordially, Bernard
Ken Olson
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Ken Olson »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:44 pm to Ken Olson,
If you think "Matthew" created these overlaps, then why not a Q contributor doing the same.
Because we don't generally hypothesize lost documents to explain things equally well as existing documents we already have. The lost document has to provide a significantly different and better explanation for us to need to hypothesize it in the first place.

At no point will I be able to show that Matthew has a property that your hypothetical document does not (well, other than Matthew actually existing). You can always take over a property Matthew has and attribute it to your lost document as well. But to be credible, your lost document must be demonstrably different (I don't mean that you think of it as different; I mean you can show other people that a different document is called for).

This is the point I made in my last post, which I don't think has sunk in with you yet. So please, do think about it and about all the Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke and how many of those (and the pericopes in which they are set) you want to add to Q.

Best,

Ken
Post Reply