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
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 12:09 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:05 pm
Jax wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:02 pm Purely out of curiosity, is there a link to the contents of the most popular reconstruction of Q?

Would like to review it if so.

Lane
The International Q Project's text of Q in English translation:

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm
Right on! Thank you Ken.

Lane
You might not be quite so peppy after trying to read that tiny print on a faux papyrus background, LOL. I recommend copying, pasting, and reformatting.
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 »

My attempt to show my two sources theory (I don't expect any compliment on my arrows ;) )

Image

Cordially, Bernard
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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:25 am
Charles Wilson wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:02 amWithout an existing Jesus, the entire Q argument falls apart.
This, too, is incorrect. (Earl Doherty famously argued that Kloppenborg's layering of Q was an argument against an historical Jesus. Whether he is right or wrong is a matter for discussion, obviously, but one may certainly imagine Q as existing while Jesus did not.)
For the Record, I agree with you. My Logical Point, however, was something different. If I was that artistically inclined, I could draw a comic book, "The Continuing Adventures of Jesus" and it wouldn't matter if "Jesus" existed or not. Judaism demanded that no representations of People be allowed. Pompey looked in the Holy of Holies and found nothing to "See". OK, OK. Here, "Sayings" replace "Images".

The point is that if a "Q" Document existed, it existed in a manner similar to my non-existent comic book. It was a manufactured document. The study of such a posited document, beyond the bare listing of its current found content, is for Historical Curiosity.

The idol, rendered in stone, is not the god/goddess but the representation. Try telling that, however to a Naram-Sin.

"The Sayings of Jesus" may point to material in Matthew and Luke not found in Mark. Existence is not a predicate. If "Jesus" did not exist, then the study of such a posited document is the study of a manufactured document, with all that entails. To put it perhaps too bluntly, It was either manufactured from whole cloth or was rewritten from source Documents which might not originally have had anything to do with a "Jesus" character.

My own view may be changing. If "Q" existed, it was probably an Intermediate Document, marking a revision of an Original Story, rewriting the Intent of the Story into the story of the New! Improved! savior-god, familiar to Roman Sensibilities. I could then see that a "Q" existed. It would make a difference if a "Jesus" character then existed and that actual mouthed words of the sort came from his mouth.

I remain skeptical of that.

Best to you,

CW
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: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:15 pm My attempt to show my two sources theory (I don't expect any compliment on my arrows ;) )

Cordially, Bernard
Nice arrows. Wittgenstein would be proud!!!

CW
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 11:50 am
rgprice wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:46 amIn my view, and I believe it is a view that is widely shared by Q advocates, Q has to be a collection of sayings that were produced with no knowledge of any narrative Gospel. Q is intended to be a collection of sayings, not an augmentation of a Gospel. If Q is an augmentation of a narrative Gospel then 95% of what Q theorists argue over is irrelevant.
What if the author of Q knew Mark and yet produced a Q document exactly like the modern reconstruction of Q by Kloppenborg and Robinson and the rest? If I were to propose that scenario, would I be a Q theorist? The documents themselves have not changed: Mark is still Mark and Q is still Q (as per the most popular reconstruction, anyway); and Matthew and Luke used them both independently of one another. But I come along and suggest that Q extracted at least some its sayings from Mark. (Note that I am not asking whether you think I am wrong or even an idiot for making such a proposal; I am asking whether I am still a Q theorist.)
But at that point Q is not a collection of sayings that potentially trace to Jesus. Such a Q is just an addition to Mark.

Q is only relevant if it comes from somewhere other than Mark. Adding dialog to Mark = making a longer version of Mark. The Q hypothesis did not propose simply that Matthew and Luke copied from a longer version of Mark.
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 »

Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:15 pm My attempt to show my two sources theory (I don't expect any compliment on my arrows ;) )

Image

Cordially, Bernard
This is functionally equivalent to :

Image
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 2:51 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:50 am
rgprice wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:46 amIn my view, and I believe it is a view that is widely shared by Q advocates, Q has to be a collection of sayings that were produced with no knowledge of any narrative Gospel. Q is intended to be a collection of sayings, not an augmentation of a Gospel. If Q is an augmentation of a narrative Gospel then 95% of what Q theorists argue over is irrelevant.
What if the author of Q knew Mark and yet produced a Q document exactly like the modern reconstruction of Q by Kloppenborg and Robinson and the rest? If I were to propose that scenario, would I be a Q theorist? The documents themselves have not changed: Mark is still Mark and Q is still Q (as per the most popular reconstruction, anyway); and Matthew and Luke used them both independently of one another. But I come along and suggest that Q extracted at least some its sayings from Mark. (Note that I am not asking whether you think I am wrong or even an idiot for making such a proposal; I am asking whether I am still a Q theorist.)
But at that point Q is not a collection of sayings that potentially trace to Jesus. Such a Q is just an addition to Mark.

Q is only relevant if it comes from somewhere other than Mark. Adding dialog to Mark = making a longer version of Mark. The Q hypothesis did not propose simply that Matthew and Luke copied from a longer version of Mark.
No, you are not understanding, and what I do not understand is why you are not understanding. What is the block?

If Q looks exactly as the IQP reconstructs it, and if Mark looks exactly like our modern eclectic texts reconstruct it, then Q is not a longer version of Mark. For one thing, it is massively shorter (!) than Mark. For another, it replicates almost none of Mark's narrative; it mines Mark only for some sayings material and ignores the rest.

On the reconstruction I am hypothetically proposing, for example, Matthew and Luke would have gotten most of their Sermon sayings from Q (because those sayings are not present in Mark) and their passion narrative from Mark (because Q lacks a passion narrative).

When you read my words, which were extremely carefully chosen, and then call the Q that I am describing a longer version of Mark, that means that there is some very fundamental misunderstanding going on. I am just not sure whence that misunderstanding is arising.
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 pm
Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:15 pm My attempt to show my two sources theory (I don't expect any compliment on my arrows ;) )

Image

Cordially, Bernard
This is functionally equivalent to :

Image
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.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1211
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 12:24 pm
Jax wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:09 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:05 pm
Jax wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:02 pm Purely out of curiosity, is there a link to the contents of the most popular reconstruction of Q?

Would like to review it if so.

Lane
The International Q Project's text of Q in English translation:

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm
Right on! Thank you Ken.

Lane
You might not be quite so peppy after trying to read that tiny print on a faux papyrus background, LOL. I recommend copying, pasting, and reformatting.
:lol: I'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:
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 »

Bernard's theory, for those who would prefer cleaner arrows:

Bernard's Source Theory.png
Bernard's Source Theory.png (14.95 KiB) Viewed 904 times
Post Reply