Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:26 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:22 am
Doherty is free to assume such a source (and many others sources and layers). But such a source is not Q as German New Testament scholars once developed it as a theorem.
really Doherty has started with your definition of Q "as German New Testament scholars once developed it as a theorem" and
only in a second logical step he has wondered about why there is not a bit of suffering of Jesus in Q.
Giuseppe, don't you see that this is a completely different situation?
Among the early Christian writings there are texts that
agree in content and wording to such an extent that there is a literary relationship between these texts. Either one author used the other author's text as a source, or both authors shared a common source. This close literary relationship applies,
for example, to
- GLuke and GMarcion
- many pericopes of GMark, GMatthew and GLuke
- some pericopes of GMatthew and GLuke
- John's pericope of the anointing at Bethany and the synoptic parallels
- Paul's Lord's supper and the synoptic parallels
In all these cases, there is a need to explain this literary relationship: Who wrote first and who used whom as a source, or whether there is a common source.
In contrast, there is
no need to explain the content of GMark in terms of
this kind of literary relationship to Paul and I assume, that Doherty did not suggest that. Even assuming that Mark was a Pauline theologian, we need not conclude that he necessarily had Galatians 2 before him when he wrote GMark 7:1ff. He may be influenced by Paul in a common sense. He may have had it in mind and alluded to it.
But he didn't need Galatians in front of him as text. I can even assume that Mark wasn't influenced by Galatians at all, but that it was general thought in certain Christian circles. There is
no agreement in content and wording that compels me to assume a literary relationship between Galatians and GMark.
Since Q does not exist as a currently available text, there is also no literary relationship to GMark that would have to be explained. I can take Q as a pipe dream of some New Testament scholar from 100 years ago. But I can't do that with GMatthew and GLuke. I have only to think of Mark, Matthew and Luke as creative theological writers who made up their own stories and otherwise copied from each other. And that's exactly what I do.