In Response To: Ron Price
On: Evidence for Q
Ron recently referred to a web page where evidence for Q (a conjectured
source prior to Mt and Lk and used independently by both) is presented.
Evidence on that page for Mt > Lk can of course also be accommodated in the
FGH. Ron referred particularly to the following, which on their face refute
the FGH by implying a directionality Lk > Mt. Being concerned to improve
(or, that option having been declined by none other than the then proprietor
of FG, namely Michael G himself, to replace) the FGH, I was especially
interested in these items. Here is that entire list as Ron has posted it. My
comments are in brackets.
--------BEGIN RON'S LIST
Occasional Lukan Originality
In the Double Tradition sometimes Luke appears to have (in whole or in
part) the more original text. Therefore in those places Luke does not seem
to have been dependent on Matthew, but instead Matthew and Luke seem to have
been dependent on a common source. Here are some examples of cases where the
text in Luke appears to be more original than that in Matthew. Of the
clearest cases, none are in narrative material and all occur in aphorisms. I
have chosen examples where the greater originality of the Lukan text is also
supported by Mack in "The Lost Gospel", Robinson et al. in "The Sayings
Gospel Q ..." and Fleddermann in "Q: A Reconstruction ...".
Lk 6:20 "poor" (not Matthew's "poor in spirit")
[Mt here takes Lk's Beatitude out of Lk's original poverty area, and
makes it compatible with the merely depressed, which would include those of
all income levels]
Lk 6:36 "merciful / full of pity" (not Matthew's "perfect")
[Not only so, but the whole of Matthew's Sermon is posterior to Luke's
Sermon. Notice the inserts that Mt places in Lk's sermon: they are on the
central Matthean themes of the perfection and permanence of the Law, matters
of no or negative interest to Luke]
Lk 6:39 'blind guides' as two rhetorical questions
Lk 10:4 "greet no one on the way"
Lk 10:5 "say: 'Peace to this house'"
Lk 10:7 "eating ... whatever they provide"
Lk 10:24 "prophets and kings" (not Matthew's "prophets and saints")
Lk 11:2 "Father" (not Matthew's "Our Father")
[Not only so, but it has been seen since Kilpatrick that the Lukan LP as
a whole is anterior to the Matthean LP, which adds only sonority and
liturgical weight to the original]
Lk 11:30 "... a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be to
Lk 11:49 "persecute" (not Matthew's "crucify")
Lk 12:8 & 12:9 "angels ..." (not Matthew's "my Father in heaven")
Lk 12:24 "ravens" (not Matthew's "birds of the air")
Lk 12:24 "God feeds them" (not Matthew's "your heavenly Father feeds them")
Lk 14:26 "hate" (not Matthew's "love more ...")
Lk 14:35 "the earth or the dung heap"
Lk 16:17 "it is easier for" (not Matthew's "until")
Lk 17:6 "mulberry tree" (not Matthew's "mountain")
Lk 17:30 "the day the Son of Man is revealed" (not Matthew's "the coming of
the Son of Man")
----------------END OF RON LIST
Some of these are gossamer, some are substantial. And there is a lot more
where that came from. M Goulder has immense fun (and carries at least this
reader along with him) in showing how inept, and in what we would now call
Goodacre terms, how illustrative of author fatigue, is Luke's handling, or
better mishandling, of the Matthean Parable of the Talents. But the flip
side is that an equally hilarious case can be made for Matthew in Mt 22:1-14
messing up the Parable of the Feast in Lk 14:15-24. And in very similar ways
(the addition of a narratively inconcinnitous King - quel coincidence!).
This and other passages are evidence for what is called alternating
primitivity. They refute the idea that a single directionality can be
imputed to all the joint Mt/Lk material. It cannot. Some of the laughs run
uphill, with respect to the other laughs. That leaves us with few analytical
options; namely two. As between (1) a theory of an external source, which
deals only with some of the Major Agreements (not all; present Q doctrine
does not include the respective Birth Narratives, a tremendous failure of
that hypothesis), and none of the Minor Agreements, and (2) a theory of two
stages of Luke, which in principle accommodates all of the above, how shall
a reflective reader of these texts choose?
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst