Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.
Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:13 pm
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Totally! In just the first five minutes it has helped me enormously. 50 bucks well spent IMO.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:13 pmHey, good one. Let me know if you find anything great.
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.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.
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?rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:03 pmIt'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.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.
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.
Let me give a concrete example of how this diagram does not summarize or represent the proposal that I am hypothetically making.
No, because Luke contains agreements with with Mark against Matthew.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?
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.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 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.
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?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
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.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.
Exactly! Exactly so. Luke contains agreements with Mark against Matthew; therefore, Luke must know Mark in addition to Matthew. Perfect.rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:26 pmNo, because Luke contains agreements with with Mark against Matthew.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?