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

Klinghardt and The Case Against Q - some recent thoughts.

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    Back in 2008, in a response to The Case Against Q , Klinghardt (The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion) suggested that the problem
    Message 1 of 3 , May 16, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Back in 2008, in a response to 'The Case Against Q', Klinghardt (The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New
      Suggestion) suggested that the problem of 'alternating primitivity' that arises without Q (in which Mt appears to depend
      on Lk in some places, and Lk on Mt in others) can be solved if Marcion's Gospel (Mcg) is added to the "Markan priority
      without Q" hypothesis (MwQH) synoptic diagram, with Mcg knowing Mk, Mt knowing both Mk and Mcg, and Lk primarily
      depending on Mcg, but knowing Mk and Mt as well. In this suggestion Mcg may be regarded as a 'Luke A,' with our Lk being
      'Luke B,' or (according to some) 'Luke C.'



      Now, without wishing (at this time) to get into the question of whether Mcg was earlier or later than Lk, I would like
      to ask the following: Supposing we did add a 'Luke A' to the MwQH, what would it include (or not) to minimize the
      problems that are not otherwise solved by the MwQH? Could we then compare that to the various proposals for an early
      version of Lk that have arisen, and look to see whether any are a close match? Finally, supposing we find a match, how
      far would this go towards showing that a 'Luke A' really did exist?

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

      Tricky NT Textual Issues <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/>



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ronald Price
      ... David, Perhaps a good place to start would be with the section headed Occasional Lukan Originality on the web page below. The section lists 18 places
      Message 2 of 3 , May 17, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        David Inglis asked:

        > Supposing we did add a 'Luke A' to the MwQH, what would it include (or not) to
        > minimize the problems that are not otherwise solved by the MwQH?

        David,

        Perhaps a good place to start would be with the section headed "Occasional
        Lukan Originality" on the web page below. The section lists 18 places where
        three leading supporters of the 2ST agree that the word(s) in Luke reflect
        an earlier text than the corresponding word(s) in Matthew.

        Ron Price,

        Derbyshire, UK

        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_LkMt.html



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Ron Price On: Evidence for Q From: Bruce Ron recently referred to a web page where evidence for Q (a conjectured source
        Message 3 of 3 , May 19, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          Cc: GPG
          In Response To: Ron Price
          On: Evidence for Q
          From: Bruce

          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
          this generation"
          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?

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.