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