Re: [Synoptic-L] Matthew and "Q"
- Dave gentile wrote:
> Let's suppose, as Mark Goodacre has argued and as some statisticalDave,
> 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.
You and Mark may make this supposition, but you'd both be wrong. Have you
ever analysed the Double Tradition (the material common to Matthew and Luke
but not Mark)? It is as varied in theology and style as Matthew. But an
early source would be expected to have a narrower focus. As you know, my
conclusion is that part of the Double Tradition derived from Matthew, and
part from an early sayings source.
> One issue with this behavior I've questioned is that Luke seems toLet's suppose for the sake of argument that we can measure "respect" by the
> respect Matthew as an early source, by carefully quoting him, .....
carefulness of someone's references. Would you not agree that we must take
into account *all* the texts where Luke is dependent on Matthew? We then
have to include, for instance, Luke's transformation of the Parable of the
Talents into the Parable of the Pounds, the Prodigal Son's dependence on Mt
21:28-32 (as argued by Goulder, and Ken Olson), and even the dependence of
Luke's birth narratives on certain key elements in Matthew's birth
narratives. Thus Luke's references to Matthew are not always faithful to the
> These considerations led me to my "Q-forgery" idea. But now I see thatI would argue that Papias was probably correct in assigning the "oracles"
> 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),
(alias the early sayings source behind part of the Double Tradition) to the
> .......You appear to think that a skilful author would not choose to quote
> 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.
accurately some parts of a source, while using other parts of the same
source in a very cavalier manner. Why not, if that source contains material
with a wide variety in respect of reliability, theology, and perceived
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
> 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.
>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.
> 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've not had a chance to look at the rest yet. Probably Tuesday, if not before then.