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

Matthew and "Q"

Expand Messages
  • gentile_dave@emc.com
    We ve been revisiting my old statistical study of word frequencies in the synoptics on another list. Original study here:
    Message 1 of 34 , May 7, 2009
      We've been revisiting my old statistical study of word frequencies in
      the synoptics on another list.

      Original study here:


      Dave Inglis has been trying out some different mathematical approaches
      and we've been looking at the results. I'll spare everyone the details
      of the changes, due to probable lack of interest. However, I thought it
      might be of interest that some variations seem a little more favorable
      to the Mark-without-Q hypothesis. I would not go so far as to say we
      have conclusive evidence, but it did get me thinking about the problem

      I had suggested a "Q forgery scenario" here:


      But I think I may now have a simpler suggestion along the same lines.

      Let's suppose, as Mark Goodacre has argued and as some statistical
      investigation has suggested, that Sondergut Matthew and Matthew's "Q"
      material were produced by the same process - that is both were original
      creations by the same author.

      However, it seems to me that the very minimum sense in which a sayings
      list could have existed would be in Luke's work-room. That is - even if
      Luke were only working from Mark and Matthew, the process would require
      that he go through Matthew, write down things he wanted (thus
      momentarily producing something "Q"-like), and then rearrange and expand
      the material for inclusion in his gospel.

      One issue with this behavior I've questioned is that Luke seems to
      respect Matthew as an early source, by carefully quoting him, but on the
      other hand based on the reshuffling of the order, seems to treat Matthew
      more like we would expect Luke to treat a contemporary author without
      first-hand insight into the order of events.

      These considerations led me to my "Q-forgery" idea. But now I see that
      it need not have been so elaborate. Suppose around the year 85, someone
      decides to produce a new gospel, based on Mark, but also expanding it
      significantly. This author puts out the story that the additions are
      based on an interview with Matthew (although this is probably not true),
      and that Matthew wrote down and remembered quotes of Jesus. Given that
      we have forged works in the name of Paul, this scenario seems quite

      But now we have a reasonable explanation for Luke's treatment of the
      gospel of Matthew. Luke knows the gospel of Matthew is a contemporary
      work, based largely on a much earlier gospel - Mark, but also believes
      that this new gospel also contains words of Jesus based on a direct
      interview with Matthew. Thus Luke decides that his first task is to
      extract those direct words from the gospel of Matthew and make a list
      for himself. He then proceeds to use the earliest copy of Mark
      available to him, and his newly-created list of Jesus sayings to produce
      the gospel of Luke.

      I would then add that some longer areas of textual agreement with are
      assigned to Q, for example John's special preaching, were not added to
      Luke by the original author. These were the work of other later
      "authors" importing bits of Matthew into the text of Luke. These larger
      bits of text look distinctly Matthian.

      A while back we noted a statistically significant result. If you take
      Luke's two main additions, the sermon on the plain, and the travel
      narrative and look at the length of exact quotes there, and then also
      look at the length of exact quotes found outside of these sections, the
      difference in length is statistically significant, suggesting that these
      two sets of agreements were produced by different processes. I.e. the
      two main sections were produced by the original authors of Luke, whereas
      the longer agreements were produced by later copyists.


      Dave Gentile

      Riverside, IL

      Dave Gentile

      Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

      EMC Captiva

      EMC Corporation

      601 Oakmont Lane,

      Westmont, IL 60559

      P: 630-321-2985

      F: 630-654-1607

      E: Gentile_Dave@...

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dave Gentile
      ... Dave: Better , is a subjective judgment. Personally I d prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that s just my subjective judgment.
      Message 34 of 34 , May 15, 2009

        > Dave,
        > What you propose is clearly not impossible. But it is certainly not as good
        > as the original. What you present here is a brief general call to
        > repentance, followed by scenarios of people eager to repent. In our extant
        > Luke there is a warning of wrath and fire, so that by verse 10 one can sense
        > the crowds feeling guilty and ready to make amends. It parallels an
        > evangelistic meeting where there is a lengthy build-up of emotion before a
        > challenge to commitment. Luke was a good storyteller!


        'Better', is a subjective judgment. Personally I'd prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that's just my subjective judgment.

        Consistency, and sticking with a theme is a less subjective measure.


        > But there remains the jump in the opposite direction, between verses 3 & 4.
        > In the extant text vv. 4-6 represent a temporary departure from the theme of
        > repentance so that Luke can portray the Jewish scriptures as hinting at the
        > salvation of the Gentiles (v.6).

        I really don't see this as much of a jump, if any. v3 mentions forgiveness (group not named), and the quote from Isaiah's 'punchline' is about salvation (for all). "Forgiveness -> salvation" seems like theme continuity to me.

        I've not had a chance to look at the rest yet. Probably Tuesday, if not before then.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.