Right. And I'm saying that the proposal that Matthew and Luke both separately worked from Q (IQP) and Mark as opposed to some intermediate Gospel in which the Q sayings were added to Mark in a way that is reflected in Matthew and Luke, is a distinction without a difference. In fact, the simpler model in which there is an intermediate Gospel is far more likely. Because in that case, the removal of the sandals takes place in the intermediate Gospel, which is reflected in both dependent Gospels, Matthew and Luke. At that point, one person makes the change and two people copy it, as opposed to two people independently making the same change.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:49 am
Of course they do in a general sense: parts of Mark and (at least) part of Q stand together both in Matthew and Luke. Absolutely true. But it feels like you did not understand my point about Mark 6.8 and Luke/Q 9.3 (IQP 10.4):
None of these texts has Jesus both allowing and forbidding a staff. They all choose either yes or no.
What my proposal states is that Matthew and Luke are independent of each other; therefore, they got the staff and sandals being prohibited from a separate source, not from each other. That source cannot be Mark, because Mark allows both staff and sandals.
If Q is derived from Mark, i.e. additional dialog that was created in response to the reading of Mark, then there is no basis for claiming that Q was an isolated document. At that point, Q is an extension of Mark. saying that the Q extension dialog was written on a separate piece of paper by itself instead of written in-line as part of a new Gospel that was derived from Mark is a meaningless distinction.
Of course, that new Gospel would reflect all of the commonalities between Matthew and Luke against Mark. Thus my point, that if you are going to say that "Q" is derived from Mark, the proposition that the Q material comes from a new Gospel is the only thing that even makes sense, because then not only is Q itself explained, but so are the minor agreements against Mark.
Continuing to depict Q as a separate sayings document at that point is meaningless and actually adds complexity to the solution. If Q is derived from Mark, then the most parsimonious solution is that a new Gospel was produced that contained the Q material, along with the minor agreements. Continuing to think of Q as a separate document gains you nothing.
And all I'm saying is that any of those changes could just as easily have been made upstream in a new full Gospel. I'm claiming that there isn't a single scenario in which a better explanation can be provided (when Q is derived from Mark) with Q being separate from Mark vs a new Gospel that is derived from Mark with the Q material added. A new Gospel can account for every single scenario plus more, over a scenario were Q and Mark are separate.Now, please do not go into how foolish I may be for thinking this. I do not care about that; it is just an example (albeit one, in this case, which persuades a lot of scholars). What I am saying is that such a proposal keeps Mark and Q separate on the grounds of specific contradictions like this. Your response to me was that Matthew and Luke each combine Mark and Q, and that completely misses the point of the specific contradictions which they do not combine; they choose one or the other.
Let's call the new Gospel GQ. Anything you can account for with M + Q can be accounted for with GQ, or at the very least M + GQ. (I'm not entirely sure if just GQ alone can account for everything. I think it can, but even if not, there is always M + GQ). But in addition to that, GQ can account for additional things that M + Q cannot account for on its own. So there is no reason to defend M + Q in the face of GQ.
Everything that Matthew and Luke agree on would exist in GQ. In every place were either Luke or Matthew follows Mark, then GQ would follow Mark. The deviation by one or the other is explained as the choice of that individual author. Matthew would have reordered GQ, while Luke stuck more to the order of GQ.
And of course, Q theory is not about Matthew and Luke copying from an intermediate Gospel. It's about copying from a sayings document. The only "sayings document" that makes any sense to defend, is a sayings document that is independent of Mark. Because as soon as you make the sayings of Q dependent on Mark, then you arrive at GQ, not M + Q.
The only reason to worry and fret over the minor agreements is if you are defending a Q that is independent of Mark. A Q that is dependent on Mark resolves the minor agreements via GQ. But Q theorists don't accept that solution because they are defending a Q that is independent from Mark.