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.
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,
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
This is what I wrote:
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 the Q document would incorporate a mix of (few) deemed authentic sayings with many created ones.
The created stuff would have nothing to do with Peter, certainly true about Q sayings showing knowledge of GMark.

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 8:29 am to mlinssen,
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
This is what I wrote:
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 the Q document would incorporate a mix of (few) deemed authentic sayings with many created ones.
The created stuff would have nothing to do with Peter, certainly true about Q sayings showing knowledge of GMark.

Cordially, Bernard
If I can be awfully rough, basically that is what I call "a layered tradition", with a source document, multiple intermediate documents and one final document - and the question then is, who authored it all, was there a committee, in a sense of some centralised action, top-down, exerting control and validation, or was this more of a bottom-up process, decentralised, where it was something like a buddy system that allowed for your entry to be "taken up into the records"?

Regardless of the answer, the "Q" that would result exists in many forms, and what one would need to do is put version numbering to it: Q 1.0, 1.5, 2.2, 2.3, 4.8 - and so on

Because in this scenario, Q dramatically changes form, shape but above all content, and one couldn't possibly speak of "a Q document"
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,
If I can be awfully rough, basically that is what I call "a layered tradition", with a source document, multiple intermediate documents and one final document - and the question then is, who authored it all, was there a committee, in a sense of some centralised action, top-down, exerting control and validation, or was this more of a bottom-up process, decentralised, where it was something like a buddy system that allowed for your entry to be "taken up into the records"?
I don't know about the evolution of Q except that a compiler produced a document out of sayings & few narratives after GMark was known and before GLuke & GMatthew were written. From where that the pieces of Q material came from? most of them invented, all of that by different people, but thought to be genuine in the Christian church (most likely Antioch) where they were compiled, with, for most, intermixing.
No centralised action was required.

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 12:25 pm to mlinssen,
If I can be awfully rough, basically that is what I call "a layered tradition", with a source document, multiple intermediate documents and one final document - and the question then is, who authored it all, was there a committee, in a sense of some centralised action, top-down, exerting control and validation, or was this more of a bottom-up process, decentralised, where it was something like a buddy system that allowed for your entry to be "taken up into the records"?
I don't know about the evolution of Q except that a compiler produced a document out of sayings & few narratives after GMark was known and before GLuke & GMatthew were written. From where that the pieces of Q material came from? most of them invented, all of that by different people, but thought to be genuine in the Christian church (most likely Antioch) where they were compiled, with, for most, intermixing.
No centralised action was required.

Cordially, Bernard
You know an awful lot for someone who doesn't know LOL.
Still, given the fact that you distinguish various versions, it is good practice to use version indications. Otherwise people will get confused and (rightly) assume you are taking about one single document that didn't undergo many significant changes, if any

I'm lucky with Thomas. Just one original in Coptic, and sloppy copies in Greek fragments that can be completely ignored
Post Reply