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.
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: 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):

Mark: staff, yes; sandals, yes.
Matthew: staff, no; sandals, no.
Luke: staff, no; sandals, no.
Q (IQP): staff, no; sandals, no.

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.
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.

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.
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.
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.

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.
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 »

rgprice wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:33 am In every place were either Luke or Matthew follows Mark, then GQ would follow Mark.
I understand the point that Mk -> GQ, GQ -> Lk, and GQ -> Mt explains every possible set of Mk // Lk, Mk // Mt, or Lk // Mt parallels. Everything in 2 out of 3 gospels could be explained as being present in GQ.

Ignoring Occam's Razor for a moment, it's reasonable to clarify: We would be on more certain ground in claiming that the Mt // Lk != Mk parallels come from GQ. We would be on less certain grounds claiming that Lk // Mk != Mt is something from GQ, when it's possible that Lk depended on Mk. Likewise, we would be on less certain grounds claiming that Mt // Mk != Lk is something from GK. The idea that "where either Luke or Matthew follows Mark, then GQ would follow Mark" is an outcome of the simplified diagram, but it's not necessarily true.

There could be some kind of evidence regarding the contents of GQ that is not just a parallel of synoptic gospels. If that evidence exists and is recognized, there could be a justification for a more complex model that includes a dependence of Luke or of Matthew on 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 »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:06 am
rgprice wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:33 am In every place were either Luke or Matthew follows Mark, then GQ would follow Mark.
I understand the point that Mk -> GQ, GQ -> Lk, and GQ -> Mt explains every possible set of Mk // Lk, Mk // Mt, or Lk // Mt parallels. Everything in 2 out of 3 gospels could be explained as being present in GQ.

Ignoring Occam's Razor for a moment, it's reasonable to clarify: We would be on more certain ground in claiming that the Mt // Lk != Mk parallels come from GQ. We would be on less certain grounds claiming that Lk // Mk != Mt is something from GQ, when it's possible that Lk depended on Mk. Likewise, we would be on less certain grounds claiming that Mt // Mk != Lk is something from GK. The idea that "where either Luke or Matthew follows Mark, then GQ would follow Mark" is an outcome of the simplified diagram, but it's not necessarily true.

There could be some kind of evidence regarding the contents of GQ that is not just a parallel of synoptic gospels. If that evidence exists and is recognized, there could be a justification for a more complex model that includes a dependence of Luke or of Matthew on Mark.
I agree. And, like Ben, I don't actually advocate for Q or any of the scenarios I put forward. Bernard claims to be proving that Q was a document, meaning, I take it, a stand alone document. He also claimed that Q had dependences on Mark. And I'm saying that one cannot rightfully advocate for Q, call Q a separate document, and claim that Q is dependent on Mark.

Saying "Q was dependent on Mark" is the same thing as saying that someone produced a new Gospel and that Matthew and Luke derived their Gospels from that new Gospel. At that point we are no longer talking about Q. You can't say that you are advocating for Q by postulating an intermediate Gospel between Mark and Matthew/Luke. And what I'm saying is that as soon as you say that Q is dependent on Mark, you are effectively postulating a new Gospel between Mark and Matthew/Luke. You are postulating that someone expanded upon Mark, and that Matthew and Luke worked from the expansion upon Mark.

Now, I agree with that position. I agree that there was a new Gospel between Mark and Matthew/Luke, and that the new Gospel solves problems that are unsolvable under the 2DH. I'm saying that proposing a new Gospel between Mark and Matthew/Luke is not a defense of the 2DH, its a refutation of it.

It seems to be that Bernard was claiming to defend the 2DH by actually refuting it. As soon as you say "Q was derived from Mark", IMO, you are refuting the 2DH, and "Q" at that point is no longer Q. "Q" at that point is a new Gospel.
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 rgprice,
I don't like "Q is dependant on gMark".
For me, I would say that some sayings in Q show their authors knew about gMark.
I think some Q sayings were collected very early. That process kept going for decades (with many sayings/narratives being created) up to even after gMark was known. Then, before gLuke & gMatthew were written, these sayings (with a few narratives), some in Aramaic, the other in Greek were put in a single document "Quelle". Aramaic parts were then translated in Greek, sometimes differently.
So, I don't see a break between Q parts not showing their authors knew about gMark and the other Q material showing a knowledge of gMark.

I don't really care about definitions about the two sources theory and Q: there are man-made. Even so, they are not against my position: "Luke" and "Matthew" were dealing with two sources, gMark and Q. And Q is still, according to Wikipedia definition: "part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark."

Note: For the Mark/Q overlaps, I consider the ensemble to be Q, including the part(s) obviously drawn from gMark.
For example, gMatthew 3:7b-12 is Q and not only 3:7b-10 and 3:12 (with ending of 3:11: "with fire").

Cordially, Bernard
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: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:47 am to rgprice,
I don't like "Q is dependant on gMark".
For me, I would say that some sayings in Q show their authors knew about gMark.
I think some Q sayings were collected very early. That process kept going for decades (with many sayings/narratives being created) up to even after gMark was known. Then, before gLuke & gMatthew were written, these sayings (with a few narratives), some in Aramaic, the other in Greek were put in a single document "Quelle". Aramaic parts were then translated in Greek, sometimes differently.
So, I don't see a break between Q parts not showing their authors knew about gMark and the other Q material showing a knowledge of gMark.
To me this just sounds like a fudge factor put in to account for things that violate the model.

The strongest point you have is about the postulation of Aramaic translations, but I don't know enough about that to really render judgement on it. I don't know if there are other explanations for those issues or what arguments for other explanations might look like. For example, are there any of these apparent Aramaic to Greek translations issues in Luke's triple tradition material or in the material unique to Luke?

But I do know that as soon as you say that, "some sayings in Q show their authors knew about gMark". Then that is an entirely different matter from arguing for the traditional Q, which is taken to be a document that at least potentially "preserves the original sayings of Jesus."

Once you acknowledge that "some sayings" show dependency on Mark, then you have to put forward an argument for why other sayings COULD NOT HAVE been produced subsequent to Mark. It's not enough to say that we have 100 sayings, and 10 of them are best explained as having been dependent upon Mark, so I'll just assume that the other 90 weren't. At that point, once you acknowledge that 10 out of the 100 are dependent on Mark, the whole set is dependent on Mark, UNLESS you can prove otherwise.

You can't say, these 10 require dependency on Mark as an explanation, so I'll grant dependency on Mark for them, but the for ones that don't require dependency on Mark, I'll assume that they existed prior to Mark. That doesn't work. Once you show that any of the double tradition post-dates Mark you have to assume that all of it post-dates Mark, unless it can be shown otherwise.
I don't really care about definitions about the two sources theory and Q: there are man-made. Even so, they are not against my position: "Luke" and "Matthew" were dealing with two sources, gMark and Q. And Q is still, according to Wikipedia definition: "part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark."

Note: For the Mark/Q overlaps, I consider the ensemble to be Q, including the part(s) obviously drawn from gMark.
For example, gMatthew 3:7b-12 is Q and not only 3:7b-10 and 3:12 (with ending of 3:11: "with fire").

Cordially, Bernard
The point is, once you start talking about any part of the double tradition being dependent on Mark, what is really being discussed is the creation of a new Gospel. There is no logic in postulating the derivation and independent integration of a separate sayings document that is in any part derived from Mark. There is nothing that such an overly complex proposal solves that a new Gospel doesn't solve more simply and, as I've said, a new Gospel also solves the minor agreements, while a separate sayings document doesn't.

So a new Gospel solves all of the problems of Q theory, plus it solves the deficiencies of Q theory.

I can agree to disagree with Ben, and I certainly respect his view and understand what he's saying in a technical sense, but I am quite confident that as far as the major advocates of the 2DH are concerned, "Q" has to be a document that pre-dates Mark and is independent of Mark. If Q isn't independent of Mark, then 99% of what 2DH advocates argue for is beside the point. Q is only meaningful if it is independent of Mark. Otherwise, its one more part of the later stew of documents that were produced following Mark. What Q advocates are primarily defending is the idea that Q is a source that independently validates the existence of teachings that trace back to some community other than Mark. That independence is what is relied upon to use Q as a argument that some teacher, presumably Jesus, was known to have uttered these sayings before the Gospels were written. If Q isn't independent from Mark then it doesn't attest to anything other than people riffing on Mark. Q is theoretically important because it supposedly attests to and corroborates the existence of traditions that pre-date Mark.
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 »

rgprice wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:13 pmThe strongest point you have is about the postulation of Aramaic translations, but I don't know enough about that to really render judgement on it. I don't know if there are other explanations for those issues or what arguments for other explanations might look like.
rgp --

In a case such as this, quoting the ever-Politicized Wiki-P is of not much use.
Peshitta.org had a wonderful Forum that has recently gone missing. I've contacted MyBB about the issue.
I don't think Paul Younan would have eliminated the Forum but there was a tremendous amount of Aramaic Primacy material there.

If it pops back up, I'll certainly alert everyone here.
There's still a lot of Info on Aramaic Primacy out there.
Until then:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_o ... ent_theory

CW

NOTE!: The Forum is back up! www.peshitta.org
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Wed Apr 28, 2021 11:16 pm, edited 2 times 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 rgprice,
To me this just sounds like a fudge factor put in to account for things that violate the model.
The strongest point you have is about the postulation of Aramaic translations,
That would put you in the 8% according to "2) 'Ierousalem' in gMatthew" http://historical-jesus.info/q.html
But I do know that as soon as you say that, "some sayings in Q show their authors knew about gMark". Then that is an entirely different matter from arguing for the traditional Q, which is taken to be a document that at least potentially "preserves the original sayings of Jesus."
I am not a worshipper of that traditional Q.
Q & GMark, for me, contain what I think are renditions of original sayings of Jesus (sixteen in total: http://historical-jesus.info/86.html), but that's a very small proportion as compared with the amount of the whole Q.
Once you acknowledge that "some sayings" show dependency on Mark, then you have to put forward an argument for why other sayings COULD NOT HAVE been produced subsequent to Mark.
I did not say that. Just that most sayings not showing dependence on GMark cannot be dated in relation with that gospel (exception: these 16 sayings collected before GMark was written --70-71--).
The point is, once you start talking about any part of the double tradition being dependent on Mark, what is really being discussed is the creation of a new Gospel.
NO, absolutely NOT. We still have "Luke" and "Matthew" having two sources: GMark and Q document.
There is nothing that such an overly complex proposal solves that a new Gospel doesn't solve more simply and, as I've said, a new Gospel also solves the minor agreements, while a separate sayings document doesn't
You are the one claiming complexity for my proposal.
"Jesus three temptations" is considered Q even if the preamble show that the Q author kew about GMark.
And for the minor agreements against GMark, such as "Staff & sandals" in GMark against "NO staff and NO sandals" in the (considered Q) missionary directives in GLuke and GMatthew. Note: this is also an example of a Q author knowing about GMark.
"the major advocates of the 2DH are concerned, the major advocates of the 2DH are concerned, "Q" has to be a document that pre-dates Mark and is independent of Mark."
I don't care what the major advocates (allegedly) say. I certainly don't agree with: "Q" has to be a document that pre-dates Mark and is independent of Mark."
So a new Gospel solves all of the problems of Q theory,
I am curious: how do you sequence that new gospel with GMark, GLuke, GMatthew and gMarcion?
I think I remember you put GMark first, then GMarcion, then the other gospels later, after 150 AD.
Please answer.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 740
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

rgprice wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:13 pm
Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:47 am
Taking a look at the picture of Bernard explains all the confusion:
Qonfusion by Bernard
Qonfusion by Bernard
Jesus-sayings.jpg (61.4 KiB) Viewed 108 times
This entirely different interpretation of Q naturally points to Peter as the Real Q, getting his stuff directly from Jesus
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 mlinssen,
The graphic is not meant to be about the whole of Q, but just the few sayings deemed authentic (16 according to my count).
Here is the introduction I gave for this graphic:
Likely path for transmission of Jesus' deemed authentic sayings up to they were first recorded in the synoptic gospels.

Cordially, Bernard
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 740
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

Bernard Muller wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:36 am to mlinssen,
The graphic is not meant to be about the whole of Q, but just the few sayings deemed authentic (16 according to my count).
Here is the introduction I gave for this graphic:
Likely path for transmission of Jesus' deemed authentic sayings up to they were first recorded in the synoptic gospels.

Cordially, Bernard
So, so you have different Q's for different parts of the NT?
How many Q trajectories do you have then - and do you have pictures to go with all of them? I found it rather helpful
Post Reply