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.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Jax wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:09 pmI'm with you on that! Right now though I'm eager to dive into my newly arrived two volume set of The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. :thumbup:
Hey, good one. Let me know if you find anything great.
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 Ben,
Yes, that represents the case I defended.
However, there are many instances where "Luke" and "Matthew" copied from gMark without Q being the intermediary. Why: because what was copied from gMark was not added up with common elements showing in gLuke & gMatthew which are not in gMark.
There are also many instances of sayings/narratives which have common elements in gLuke & gMatthew, but without any sign to be connected to a gMark "root" (because that "root" does not exist).
I attempted to show the three cases together for a complete representation on how I see my position about the two sources controversy.

Cordially, Bernard

PS: Thank you Ben for that beautiful graphic. :D
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

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

Post by Jax »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:13 pm
Jax wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:09 pmI'm with you on that! Right now though I'm eager to dive into my newly arrived two volume set of The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. :thumbup:
Hey, good one. Let me know if you find anything great.
Totally! In just the first five minutes it has helped me enormously. 50 bucks well spent IMO. :thumbup:
rgprice
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:09 pm Those are not functionally equivalent, because one is suggesting that Matthew and Luke knew both Mark and Q, whereas the other is suggesting that Matthew and Luke did not know Mark. That is a huge difference.
It's like simplifying an an equation in math. There is no detectable different between the two diagrams. The first simplifies to the second. And secondly, what is a dotted line supposed to be? That's not a real thing, that's just some kind of make believe thing. Either one document has knowledge of the other or it doesn't.

Saying that Q is derived from Mark, but Matthew and Luke knew both Q and Mark is an unnecessary redundancy. If Q is derived from Mark then there is no need for Matthew and Luke to have used Mark. Q would contain Mark. Q would just be Mark + new sayings. There is no difference between Mark by itself and Q as a separate document derived from Mark and simply a longer version of Mark that contains Q sayings. And a longer Gospel that is an expansion of Mark with Q sayings explains the minor agreements.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rgprice wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:03 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:09 pm Those are not functionally equivalent, because one is suggesting that Matthew and Luke knew both Mark and Q, whereas the other is suggesting that Matthew and Luke did not know Mark. That is a huge difference.
It's like simplifying an an equation in math. There is no detectable different between the two diagrams. The first simplifies to the second. And secondly, what is a dotted line supposed to be? That's not a real thing, that's just some kind of make believe thing. Either one document has knowledge of the other or it doesn't.

Saying that Q is derived from Mark, but Matthew and Luke knew both Q and Mark is an unnecessary redundancy. If Q is derived from Mark then there is no need for Matthew and Luke to have used Mark. Q would contain Mark. Q would just be Mark + new sayings. There is no difference between Mark by itself and Q as a separate document derived from Mark and simply a longer version of Mark that contains Q sayings. And a longer Gospel that is an expansion of Mark with Q sayings explains the minor agreements.
Does this work with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, too? If Matthew knew and used Mark, then there is no need for Luke to have known and used both Matthew and Mark? The Farrer Theory dies before it is even born?

And look at that highlighted sentence. I have already stated as clearly as I can that the Mark I am imagining is identical with our modern eclectic text and that the Q I am imagining is identical to the IQP reconstruction. Yet you are talking again about Q being a longer version of Mark. I do not know with whom you are debating for that point to be valid, but it is not I. What about the proposal that I am making? Not someone else. I.

I am suggesting (only for the sake of argument, mind you) that Mark was written first; and then Q was written, having drawn a few sayings from Mark, modified them, and then added a few more to create a sayings document; and then Matthew and Luke independently used both Q and Mark. I am further stipulating that the Mark in question is our modern eclectic text (let us say NA28) and that the Q in question is the IQP one.

Now, it is clearly invalid to argue against that proposal on the grounds that it proposes a Q which is just an expanded Mark. That is factually not what the proposal is stating, since the IQP reconstruction of Q is far shorter than the Mark in NA28, and it lacks lots of narratives which are contained both in Mark and either in Matthew or in Luke (or in both). Also, it is clearly invalid to suggest that, on this proposal, those two diagrams are the same; they are not the same. And this is so, not because of some subtle argument or assumption or whatnot, but rather by definition from the proposal I am making. The diagrams are dissimilar, and the highlighted statement above inaccurate, simply by virtue of the fact that I am defining Mark as the most popular modern eclectic text (NA28) and Q as the most popular modern critical text (IQP).
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rgprice wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:53 pmThis is functionally equivalent to :

Image
Let me give a concrete example of how this diagram does not summarize or represent the proposal that I am hypothetically making.

Both Matthew 9.1-8 and Luke 5.17-26 contain the healing of a paralytic in common with Mark 2.1-12. The IQP reconstruction of Q lacks any such pericope. Therefore, on my proposal, Matthew and Luke cannot have derived their versions of this story from Q; it does not exist in Q. Rather, they had to have gotten it from Mark.

On the other hand, both Matthew and Luke contain a sermon given by Jesus. The sermon is very similar in outline and on many individual points; if Matthew and Luke are independent (as the Two-Source Theory proposes, and as I am agreeing in my proposal), then they cannot have drawn it from each other. Rather, they got it either from Mark or from Q. But Mark does not have any such sermon; only Q does. Therefore, Matthew and Luke got their sermon from Q.

Mark is the source for the healing of the paralytic, Q the source for the sermon. The above diagram does not work, because it shows Matthew and Luke not knowing Mark. We need something like the following instead:

Bernard's Source Theory.png
Bernard's Source Theory.png (14.95 KiB) Viewed 794 times
rgprice
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:18 pm Does this work with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, too? If Matthew knew and used Mark, then there is no need for Luke to have known and used both Matthew and Mark? The Farrer Theory dies before it is even born?
No, because Luke contains agreements with with Mark against Matthew.
And look at that highlighted sentence. I have already stated as clearly as I can that the Mark I am imagining is identical with our modern eclectic text and that the Q I am imagining is identical to the IQP reconstruction. Yet you are talking again about Q being a longer version of Mark.
What would be the different between those two as separate documents and as a single document? There is none. There is no detectable difference between those two as separate documents and a single document that is a combination of Mark and Q. Thus, by Occam's Razor we deduce that Luke and Matthew would have worked from a single document of Mark-Q.

Well the only difference between (Mark-Q) and (Mark in addition to a separate Q) is that Mark-Q would explain the minor agreements.


To be clear, we are talking about:

Mark = (a, b, c, d, e, f, g) and Q = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

I'm saying that if Q is derived from Mark, then there is no difference between (a, b, c, d, e, f, g) + (a', b', c', d', e') and (a, a', b, b', c, c', d, d', e, e', f, g), and the latter is more parsimonious. And I'm saying that the latter cannot properly be called "Q".

You are saying that there is some way to distinguish between Prop1 : Two people using {(a, b, c, d, e, f, g) + (a', b', c', d', e')} and Prop2 : two people using (a, a', b, b', c, c', d, d', e, e', f, g). I'm saying there is not. And in fact, Prop2 is so much simpler, that Prop1 doesn't even make sense anymore. And not only is it simpler, it explains the minor agreements.

And I'm saying that if you are advocating for Prop2, then you aren't really advocating for Q at all. Try to continue advocating for "Q" by depicting it as Prop1 is disingenuous and unnecessarily adds complexity.

Again, if you are talking about Q being derived from Mark, then you are talking about someone reading Mark (a) and then producing (a') as a saying to expand upon passage (a) from Mark. At that point, whether you say the final document produced was (a) and a separate document (a') or that the document was simply (a, a') is irrelevant. (a) + (a') becomes unnecessary complexity in the face of (a, a').

The standard Q theory proposes that Mark existed separately from Q. Mark = (a, b, c, d, e, f, g) and Q = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Because they were independent, it required that Matthew and Luke integrate both perform separate tasks of integrating them with the Markan narrative. If they aren't independent, then it means that Q was already integrated with Mark, so there was no task of integration for Matthew and Luke to perform.
I am suggesting (only for the sake of argument, mind you) that Mark was written first; and then Q was written, having drawn a few sayings from Mark, modified them, and then added a few more to create a sayings document; and then Matthew and Luke independently used both Q and Mark.


And I'm saying there is zero difference between that and saying that someone wrote a longer version of Mark in which the Q saying were added. You're just talking about making a longer version of Mark on two pieces of paper vs 1 piece of paper. There is no reason to propose that the expansion of Mark was performed on two pieces of paper if the result is indistinguishable from having done it on one piece of paper. If Q is derived from Mark, then what necessitates that Q be a separate document at that point? What is better explained by Q being on a separate piece of paper as opposed on on the same piece of paper as Mark?
Now, it is clearly invalid to argue against that proposal on the grounds that it proposes a Q which is just an expanded Mark. That is factually not what the proposal is stating, since the IQP reconstruction of Q is far shorter than the Mark in NA28
Yes, but that's just because its being defined as "what is not present in Mark". If you define Q as "what is not present in Mark", how would it be possible to detect the different between Mark and Q on two pieces of paper vs one piece of paper?

What you are saying is, since a part of the text of "Expanded Mark" matches Mark, that must have been written on a different piece of paper. And they must have switched back and fourth between the piece of paper that contain Mark and the piece that contained just the new sayings. How would you detect the difference between switching back and fourth between two pieces of paper and if the Q sayings and the Mark sayings co-existed on a single piece of paper? (which, again also explains the minor agreements)? Saying that Mark and Q exist on two pieces of paper doesn't actually change anything, and in fact just adds unnecessary complexity.

Just think through what the difference would between taking Mark and the IQP reconstruction of Q as separate documents, and taking a single document in which one person added the Q sayings to Mark. Now derive two new Gospels from the two scenarios. In what way could you show that the two new Gospels were derived from the separate documents as opposed to the single document?

That claim of being able to prove that the two new documents are derived from separate documents only can be shown if the two documents are independent of each other. If one is dependent upon the other, then the distinction between one and two documents is lost.
rgprice
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:34 pm Both Matthew 9.1-8 and Luke 5.17-26 contain the healing of a paralytic in common with Mark 2.1-12. The IQP reconstruction of Q lacks any such pericope. Therefore, on my proposal, Matthew and Luke cannot have derived their versions of this story from Q; it does not exist in Q. Rather, they had to have gotten it from Mark.
I'm saying that if Q is derived from Mark, then "Q" would include the material from Mark. It would be the Gospel of Mark in addition to the Q material. There is no need for a separate version of Mark.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rgprice wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:26 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:18 pm Does this work with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, too? If Matthew knew and used Mark, then there is no need for Luke to have known and used both Matthew and Mark? The Farrer Theory dies before it is even born?
No, because Luke contains agreements with with Mark against Matthew.
Exactly! Exactly so. Luke contains agreements with Mark against Matthew; therefore, Luke must know Mark in addition to Matthew. Perfect.

Likewise, on the proposal that I have made for the sake of argument, Luke contains agreements with (the eclectic text of) Mark against (the IQP version of) Q; therefore, Luke must know Mark in addition to Q. This is why the first diagram does not work and the second does.

The rest of your post seems to be an extended argument that my proposal (which is essentially a slightly updated stand-in for Wellhausen's proposal) is stupid and unnecessary. There are some flaws and oversights in your approach (the contradictions between Q and Mark, for instance, which would be problematic from a single author but not from two separate authors), but I honestly do not care, because I am not arguing that it is a good idea to suggest Q depended upon Mark. I can concede at least for the sake of argument that my proposal is stupid and unnecessary. Fine and dandy. That is a separate issue from what the contention I am trying very hard to stay focused on so as not to get dragged down a rabbit hole.
rgprice
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

No, Ben, what you are saying is this:

We have verses of Mark: (a, b, c, d, e, f, g)

Someone reads Mark and produces the following sayings to augment the dialog of Mark: (a', b', c', d', e')

Now, you are claiming that there is a difference between (a, b, c, d, e, f, g) + (a', b', c', d', e') and (a, a', b, b', c, c', d, d', e, e', f, g).

I'm saying there is no difference. Those two are the same thing.

You keep talking about how Luke or Matthew must know Mark. Of course. Mark exists in the longer version. If Mark is the set of (a-g) then that set exists in (a, a', b, b', c, c', d, d', e, e', f, g). Everything is there that is needed to derive both Matthew and Luke. All of Mark exists and all of Q exists together in a single document.

And I'm saying that that proposition ISN'T "Q theory". That proposition is "Matthew and Luke copied from a longer Gospel", whatever you want to call that.

You, then, keep saying that if you break that longer Gospel up into two separate documents, then you are back into Q theory. That simply by framing it as (a, b, c, d, e, f, g) + (a', b', c', d', e'), this is Q, while this (a, a', b, b', c, c', d, d', e, e', f, g) is not.

You're basically saying that if you take a new Gospel derived from Mark and separate the new material from the old, then you arrive at a potential Q source. I'm saying you don't. A new Gospel derived from Mark is still a new Gospel, whether you break the material up into two parts or not.

Q advocates are not proposing that "Q" is new dialog that was added to Mark. And I'm saying that new dialog added to Mark is the same thing no matter if that new dialog is in a separate document or its embedded within the narrative of Mark. Simply separating it into a new document doesn't make it something different.
Post Reply