Re: [Synoptic-L] Re herring or red flag?
- Surely one argument for some sort of Q is that of Bussmann, rehashed
entertainingly by Casey: ie that the Q material can be seen to fall
into two types: one where verbal agreement is tight (implying a common
Greek source, which could of course be Matthew!) and one where the
greek agreement is much less close, implying a common non-greek source
(ie in the mind of both of these authors, an Aramaic source). Casey
says in his monograph on Aramaic sources and Q that it is important to
pay attention to the distinction between these two types of "Q" and
its relationship to the order of the Q material in Matthew and Luke,
which sounds very intriguing but is not expanded further as far as I
can see. Any suggestions here gratefully received!
In extremis, one could use this to shrink Q down to i) passages of
Matthew that Luke inserted (including Mark-Q overlap) and ii) common
knowledge of an Aramaic source that they either independently
translated or had access to different translations of. Given that
there is precise linguistic contact in the Passion narrative twice
("who was it who struck you?" and "Peter went out and wept
bitterly"*), the suggestion would be that passion narrative minor
agreements would be from Matthew, not a Q source.
*the latter of which has some textual "issues" however...
On 21 sep 2009, at 16.16, Ron Price wrote:
> In his "The Case against Q", pp. 165-69, Mark Goodacre argues that
> if the
> Minor Agreements were to be accepted as valid evidence that Luke knew
> Matthew, then this would vindicate his case against Q. In a footnote
> n.51), he claims that the fact that a handful of scholars [Simons et
> accept Luke's dependence on both Q and Matthew is a red herring
> these scholars had reasons other than Mt/Lk independence for
> postulating Q.
> He goes on to claim that Luke's knowledge of Matthew would take away
> very reason for postulating Q.
> I see no red herring. Indeed the fact that even a handful of
> scholars have
> other reasons for accepting Luke's dependence on both Q and Matthew
> have acted as a red flag, for it plainly contradicts Mark's claim in
> last sentence of my previous paragraph.
> The heart of the problem is semantic. "Q" is a hypothetical and
> construct which means a whole range of different things to different
> scholars. To get back to basics, we should surely try to minimize our
> references to "Q".
> Therefore, given the priority of Mark's gospel, I would like to see
> 'case against Q' presented instead as (1) the case for Luke's
> knowledge of
> Matthew (the details of which Mark G. presents very well, but
> not in a distinct section) and (2) the case for/against the
> existence of a
> written sayings source. Farrer supporters tend to avoid facing up to
> latter, preferring to hide behind the semantically confusing mantra
> Luke's knowledge of Matthew 'takes away the very reason for positing
> Q'. If
> the intention is to claim that Luke's knowledge of Matthew
> 'undermines the
> case for a written sayings source', then they should say so, and
> present the
> arguments against the 'other reasons' for such a source. Perhaps
> they are
> reluctant to choose between abandoning the claim that Sanders &
> Davies are
> on the side of Farrer (for they expressed confidence in [unspecified]
> sources for the sayings material), and admitting that there is/are
> source(s) and therefore there is no 'undermining'.
> Ron Price
> Derbyshire, UK
> Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- I don't know where to begin! First, little or none of Mr.Lupia's post is the official teaching of the Catholic Church and as I understand it not the common position of Catholic scripture scholars. But a note or two:
1. Many of us Catholics -- both those of us trained in Scriptures and those not -- would argue for Markan priority, and in my case preach it.
2. He also says "Since all four Gospels were written by the Catholic Church by the original eyewitnesses by the authority of the Church
in concert". None of this is offical Church teaching and?is a rather odd understanding of the way that the Gospels were written. No one would claim they were written BY the Church as official Church documents are today. It's not like Pope Peter or Linus called Matthew Mark Luke and John and said -- hey guys write me some Gospels. And the fact is that, as we all?know,?they were not all written by eyewitnesses.
I want tobe sure everyone is clear: This is not in any way shape or form the official position of the Catholic Church.
Rev. Charles M. Schwartz, administrator
My dear brother Leonard
Matthew does not rest in peace but beholds the glory of Jesus Christ forever.
As for Matthew using Mark, huh!
As far as I am concerned all markers (pun intended) and pointers show Matthew
was written well before Mark.
BTW, this is not a contest, or protest. Since all four Gospels were written by
the Catholic Church by the original eyewitnesses by the authority of the Church
in concert there is no Synoptic Problem, and obviously a solution to your
perceptions is very easy to document and explain.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Charles Schwarz wrote:
He [John Lupia] also says "Since all four Gospels were written by the Catholic Church by the original eyewitnesses by the authority of the Church
in concert". None of this is offical Church teaching ...
To be honest, when I read John's words, I thought it was a joke. It really does look like a total cariciature (you know, on the lines of "if St Paul used the KJV, it's good enough for me..."). The problem is that humour doesn't always translate clearly in email, and especially across cultures. He was responding to Leonard Maluflen, who has argued Matthean priority on this list for a very long time, and (while he has himself done so from a clear academic standpoint) has occasionally given the impression that it is or should be RC orthodoxy. His final comments about the feast of St Matthew and "requiescat in pacem" may have been the ones which pressed John's button to make the comment he did.
Perhaps I should have said a long time ago, if you really want to get it right, you have to ask the Methodists. (Grabs coat, and runs for cover...)
Rev Tony Buglass
Upper Calder Methodist Circuit
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Graham Budd wrote:
> Surely one argument for some sort of Q is that of Bussmann, rehashedGraham,
> entertainingly by Casey: ie that the Q material can be seen to fall
> into two types: one where verbal agreement is tight (implying a common
> Greek source, which could of course be Matthew!) and one where the
> greek agreement is much less close, implying a common non-greek source
> (ie in the mind of both of these authors, an Aramaic source).
I'm sure there is some truth in this. However 'degree of verbal agreement'
as a criterion is not as useful as one might think. If there is very close
and reasonably extensive verbal agreement, we can be confident that the
source was Greek (and Luke could have been using Matthew). But the opposite
is not necessarily true, for a synoptic writer could have chosen to vary
considerably from his source. Also if Luke used Matthew as well as an
Aramaic source (which I believe), and if these sources overlapped (as they
probably did), there may be a few cases in which Matthew had translated a
saying from Aramaic, then Luke made use of Matthew's translation. One such
case seems to be the Signs saying (where the 'Queen of the South' and 'men
of Nineveh' passages are especially closely worded). Matthew's text would
have been open at the right place after copying 'Unclean Spirit' (Mt
12:43-45 // Lk 11:24-26).
A more useful criterion for separation is on the one hand Semitic aphorisms
(indicated e.g. by the use of parallelism), and on the other hand narrative,
and/or the presence of Matthean style in Luke.
> ..... Given thatAnd most other minor agreements, for that matter.
> there is precise linguistic contact in the Passion narrative twice
> ("who was it who struck you?" and "Peter went out and wept
> bitterly"*), the suggestion would be that passion narrative minor
> agreements would be from Matthew, not a Q source.
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
- Ron's web page does list some of the problems with
some of the theories.
There are problems esp over minor agreements on the Q view.
There are also problems over why Luke should have done what he did
on the view that Luke used Matthew. To propose the latter
view AND some kind of sayings source retains the second set
of problems and adds the problem of multiplying hypotheses
by positing a further entity.
If I changed my view that the difficulties for Q are less
weighty than the difficulties in holding that Luke used
Matthew, then I think I would go for the latter "straight".
So my first question is why go the trouble of proposing
a further source if one thinks that Luke used Matthew?
My second question is this:
Is it really the case that where there are cogent
arguments for some sort of sayings source these
do not also reveal some of the
difficulties for the view that Luke used Matthew?
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
- David Mealand wrote:
> There are problems esp over minor agreements on the Q view.David,
> There are also problems over why Luke should have done what he did
> on the view that Luke used Matthew.
You don't spell out the latter problems. If you refer to Luke's treatment of
Matthew's birth and resurrection narratives, then my explanation would be
similar to that provided by advocates of the Farrer Theory.
If you refer to Luke's treatment of the Sermon on the Mount, then my
explanation is different. For on the Three-Source Theory Luke did what any
good scholar would have done, namely to base his document primarily on the
earliest sources available. These were Mark's gospel (ca. 70 CE) for his
narrative, and the logia (ca. 45 CE) for the sayings. Thus his 'destruction'
of Matthew's sermon was simply a side-effect of good practice.
Luke's preference for the Markan order over the Matthean order (Kloppenborg)
was also because Luke had chosen Mark as his primary source for narratives.
> To propose the latterIf this 'further entity' were entirely hypothetical like Q, then you would
> view AND some kind of sayings source retains the second set
> of problems and adds the problem of multiplying hypotheses
> by positing a further entity.
have a valid point here. But the source is historically attested. For the
most natural understanding of Papias' "logia" or 'oracles' is that it was a
collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. I am aware that Kloppenborg calls
Papias' statement "legendary at best" ("Excavating Q", p.80). But I can't
help thinking that his conclusion was influenced by the fact that it doesn't
match his deduction of a Q which originated in Greek.
This last deduction was based mainly on texts which the Three-Source Theory
can take as cases of Luke copying Matthew directly. Thus for example the
Temptation story with its quotations from the Septuagint, the only two
probable cases of genitive absolute (Mt 11:7 par.; Mt 9:33 par.), and the
majority of passages with a high degree of verbal agreement, all occur in
texts which I assign to Luke's direct dependence on Matthew. The removal of
such texts as candidates for the sayings source will almost certainly
undermine any case against the translation hypothesis. The remainder of the
Double Tradition texts will be seen to be aphorisms, many of which exhibit
Semitic parallelism, and a few of which exhibit either paronomasia, or signs
of mistranslation in the Greek of Matthew and/or Luke. There is thus no bar
to their Aramaic origin, and no reason to disparage Papias' statement.
> If I changed my view that the difficulties for Q are lessOn the page cited below under "Evidence that Luke also used a sayings
> weighty than the difficulties in holding that Luke used
> Matthew, then I think I would go for the latter "straight".
> So my first question is why go the trouble of proposing
> a further source if one thinks that Luke used Matthew?
source" I've given a set of reasons for thinking there was a sayings source,
and longer set indicating Luke's use of it. Even if the odd reason is
rejected, the cumulative set of reasons is surely weighty.
> My second question is this:Not as far as I know. On the contrary, positing that the Double Tradition
> Is it really the case that where there are cogent
> arguments for some sort of sayings source these
> do not also reveal some of the
> difficulties for the view that Luke used Matthew?
was dual-sourced not only leads to the solution of the main problems
associated with both the 2ST and the FT, but by removing the barriers to an
Aramaic source it opens up again a perspective which has been gradually
stifled during the last 50 years or so, and brings to light a crucial
historical link between the Aramaic-speaking Jesus community in Jerusalem
and the authors of the Greek-language synoptic gospels.