Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Excavating-Q] Self Contradiction in the IQP & the Minor Agreements

Expand Messages
  • Michael Goulder
    In about half of the Q words, Matthew and Luke concur (QC words), and in half they disagree (QD). When the IQP has to decide the Q form behind the QD words, it
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 25, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In about half of the Q words, Matthew and Luke concur (QC
      words), and in half they disagree (QD). When the IQP has to
      decide the Q form behind the QD words, it assumes that Q's
      style and Mt's style were DIFFERENT. Thus Mt. elsewhere
      favours "the kingdom of heaven", "my/your Father in heaven":
      so when such phrases occur in QD (Matt.), the IQP takes
      them to be Mt's redaction. If Q's style were like Matthew's, it
      would ascribe such phrases to Q.

      But in the QC material we often find striking phrases which
      Matthew uses elsewhere, but which come once in Q - "there
      shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth", "you offspring of
      vipers", "O ye of little faith", anthropos with a noun, etc. - and
      these have to be included in Q therefore. But then this
      assumes that the styles of Q and of Mt. are SIMILAR. This is
      not a matter of statistics, but of striking language. Someone
      has only to say once "not waving but drowning", and we know
      they are familiar with Stevie Smith.

      So is the IQP not built on a SELF_CONTRADICTION? The
      reconstruction in the QD material assumes that Q's style is
      different from Mt's, and the QC material involves the
      assumption that they are similar.

      (2) It appears prima facie from Minor Agreements in the
      Passion Narrative, that Luke knew Matthew. Thus they agree
      in adding five words in sequence to Mark, "who is it that
      smote thee", of which the word PAISAS is a hapax in both
      Gospels. In recent writing K has allowed that there are seven
      other such "difficult" texts, i.e where there is impressive
      evidence that Luke knew the Mt. form. How many such difficult
      cases would be required to convince you that this was in fact
      so?

      This is the _Excavating Q_ Seminar (Oct. 23-Nov. 10 2000).
      Please send your messages to Synoptic-S@...
      Please send all other correspondence to Synoptic-S-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.