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.
Dave: The varied theology poses no problem for my latest proposal, since I'm proposing there was no early source for the double tradition.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that we can measure "respect" by the
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
Well, again, I don't see the problem for my idea. I think Luke regarded the gospel of Matthew as a contemporary creation, I would not expect him to be concerned with preserving the parable of the Talents if he didn't like it. And he is quite free to replace it with another story which was suggested to him by reading Matthew i.e. the Prodigal Son.
You appear to think that a skilful author would not choose to quote
accurately some parts of a source, while using other parts of the same
source in a very cavalier manner.
Dave: Actually, that is exactly what I am proposing. Luke is accurately quoting parts of Matthew where saying of Jesus are involved, and mostly to completely ignoring Matthew the rest of the time. This `conjecture' is considerably strengthened however, if we can offer a simple scenario which would predict that Luke would act exactly this way. This is what I believe I've done.
Let's try to start with something I think we agree on let's suppose that Luke is accurately quoting Jesus from his source, because he believes they actually are the words of Jesus. Luke is a believing Christian of the late 1st century to early 2nd century. He tells us he wants to do something like history in his prolog (although I certainly think he is not above adding, subtracting, and altering to fit his interpretation of history). This seems to be a very simple explanation for his quoting the words of Jesus carefully he believes they really are the words of Jesus.
If we agree Luke believes he has in front of him the words of Jesus, we might propose some of the following reasons for that:
1) Luke has an actual early sayings source.
2) Luke has a saying source, which he believes to be authentic, but is not.
3) Luke has only the gospel of Matthew as a source for this material, but the gospel of Matthew in fact is an early source.
4) Luke has the gospel of Matthew, and even though Matthew is contemporary, Luke believes it is an early source.
5) Luke has only the gospel of Matthew, and while he recognizes most of the material as contemporary, believes the quotes of Jesus are from early sources. And they really are.
6) Luke has only the gospel of Matthew, and while he recognizes most of the material as contemporary, believes the quotes of Jesus are from early sources. But they really are not.
Note, that if we propose that the whole gospel of Matthew is a contemporary creation, and Luke knows this, then we have violated our initial premise, that Luke believes he has the actual words of Jesus. We then need an alternate explanation for Luke's fidelity here, or the conjecture suffers greatly.
I had previously argued #2, but I would now suggest #6 is simpler, and thus better. #6 is also somewhat favored by some more recent versions of the statistical study.
#3 certainly has advocates, but since we have both rejected this idea, we may pass over it. The statistical study firmly rejects this as well.
For #4 We could consider this, but I would argue #6 is a better hypothesis for two reasons. First, it would seem to be more difficult for someone to pass off a whole gospel as being form an early source that to claim that the gospel, while newly created, is based on an interview with an early source who remembers quotations of Jesus. Thus #6 is more plausible here. Secondly, If Luke thinks all of Matthew is early then we need a simple explanation for him mostly ignoring this source in favor of Mark, paying no attention to its order of events, etc
If we lack a simple explanation, the conjecture suffers greatly, and certainly suffers relative to #6. This also brings in to question our initial premise about Luke's behavior in accurately preserving much of what he believes to be accurate.
Now we come to #1 and #5 in both of These Luke actually does have access to early sayings material. One problem for me is we failed to find distinct vocabulary profiles when looking at your proposed Matthew and sQ sections. This is not proof that this hypothesis is wrong, but we did fail to support it, which lessens my confidence. But we also disagree on the interpretation of sayings in Mark, the salt and light sayings in particular. I personally am convinced that these sayings in Mark are more original than their Matthew/Luke versions. Thus I would tend to reject these hypotheses for this reason.
#6 then is the surviving hypothesis, at least for me.