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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Query on Q

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic In Response To: Wieland Willker On: Q From: Bruce Responses on my amateur Q query have been most helpful; further ones would be also appreciated;
    Message 1 of 15 , Jun 13, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      In Response To: Wieland Willker
      On: Q
      From: Bruce

      Responses on my amateur Q query have been most helpful; further ones would
      be also appreciated; I don't mean to stop the flow by picking up on
      Wieland's last paragraph. But merely as an interlude:

      WIELAND: One direction to go with the material we have is (what I already
      proposed years ago and what Eric Eve started), to reconstruct the text of
      Mark from Mt and Lk alone. Then compare the result with the Mark we have.

      BRUCE: Don't understand. If we had only Mt and Lk and were comparing them
      for the first time, we would find a lot of overlap (some of it with
      extensive rewording), and also some striking material that was unique to
      each (including cognate parts like the birth narratives, that are so
      different that they need to be treated as parallels rather than as
      overlaps). It would soon occur to someone to isolate the overlap material,
      and see if it made sense as a common source.

      That reconstructed possible source, I suppose, would contain (1) everything
      in Mk, except a few odd and even offensive bits, plus (2) everything now
      ascribed by some to Q.

      If then Mk were suddenly rediscovered and compared with that reconstruction,
      the conclusion would be, Hmm, our reconstructed source is actually two
      things, one part is in this new Mk, but the rest must be from somewhere
      else, call it R for Residue.

      No? We would then have a Two Source Theory.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst

      [Of course the other thing to do with Mt and Lk, these being imagined to be
      all that is available, and it having been said by an early Church Father
      that a conflated Gospel had once existed, would be to conflate the extant
      texts in order to arrive at the probable text of that Gospel. This would
      lead to terrible trouble in the birth narrative sections, and the hired
      hands would come back and say, What do you want us to do with this stuff
      which is narratively analogous but can't be conflated without simply
      sacrificing one or the other? And we, the Principal Investigators, as they
      are called on this side of the water, might say, In these cases, just leave
      those parts out, and conflate what is conflatable. OK, they would do that.
      Then they say, What about order differences? We answer: Never mind order, or
      arbitrarily follow Lk for the order, just put them together. And they would
      finish up by producing a hypothetical conflated Gospel. It would be longer
      than either, since it would include all material unique to Mt or Lk and not
      somehow contradicted in the other.

      Now assume the same result as above: Mk is suddenly discovered in the sands
      of Egypt. If it were then compared with the hypothetical Conflation Gospel,
      what would be the reaction?

      First, the investigators would congratulate themselves on finessing the
      birth narratives, since the recovered text agrees in not containing them. So
      far so good.

      But Second, they would be shocked at how short Mk is, compared with their
      rational prediction of its contents. What would be their next step,
      conceptually? (1) To conjecture a second, still lost, Conflation Gospel? I
      don't think this would square with the patristic testimony that started them
      off. There is no reason to think that a Conflation Gospel would have been
      written in two pieces, and enshrined in separate texts altogether, and
      anyway, the patristic statement mentioned one Conflation Gospel, not two. So
      that line seems to lead nowhere. (2) To work on their conception of how the
      conflation should have been done? Much more likely. They would then come, in
      sequence from the top, to something like Mt 5:3, 6 || Lk 6:21-22:

      "Blessed are [the] poor, for 'theirs] is the Kingdom of Heaven [= God].
      Blessed are [those] who hunger, for [they] shall be satisfied

      They need to find reason why this did not appear in the Conflated Gospel.
      What's the reason?]
    • Eric Eve
      Bruce Brooks wrote ... What Wieland may not have made sufficiently clear here is that what I did was to start reconstructing the text of Mark from Mt and Lk
      Message 2 of 15 , Jun 13, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce Brooks wrote

        > Responses on my amateur Q query have been most helpful; further ones would
        > be also appreciated; I don't mean to stop the flow by picking up on
        > Wieland's last paragraph. But merely as an interlude:

        > WIELAND: One direction to go with the material we have is (what I already
        > proposed years ago and what Eric Eve started), to reconstruct the text of
        > Mark from Mt and Lk alone. Then compare the result with the Mark we have.

        > BRUCE: Don't understand. If we had only Mt and Lk and were comparing them
        > for the first time, we would find a lot of overlap (some of it with
        > extensive rewording), and also some striking material that was unique to
        > each (including cognate parts like the birth narratives, that are so
        > different that they need to be treated as parallels rather than as
        > overlaps). It would soon occur to someone to isolate the overlap material,
        > and see if it made sense as a common source.

        What Wieland may not have made sufficiently clear here is that what I did
        was to start reconstructing the text of Mark from Mt and Lk *and Q* (as
        defined in the IQP's _Critical Edition of Q_). He's referring to my piece in
        Goodacre and Perrin (eds) _Questioning Q_.

        -- Eric
        ----------------------------------
        Eric Eve
        Research Fellow and Tutor in Theology
        Harris Manchester College, Oxford
        http://users.ox.ac.uk/~manc0049/
      • Chuck Jones
        Bruce, Two observations: 1. That was brilliant thought excercise--very well said. 2. To me, the fact that Q is not extant today is the single most irrelevant
        Message 3 of 15 , Jun 13, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Bruce,

          Two observations:

          1. That was brilliant thought excercise--very well said.
          2. To me, the fact that Q is not extant today is the single most irrelevant argument made against it. Lk says in his prologues there were "many" written accounts of Jesus and that he researched them for his book. All but Mk (or Mt) are lost.

          The literary style of Mk, Mt and Lk align with this prologue observation--in form the synoptics (including Mk) are collections of brief, stand-alone vignettes about things Jesus said or did. So Mk had at least one (lost) source. Mt had M, Lk had L (he says "many" sources, actually), Mt and Lk had Mk. Mk is the only one that is still extant. There is nothing at all surprising that Q, if it existed, would not be extant. It would be surprising if in fact it were.

          Chuck


          E Bruce Brooks <ebbrooks@...> wrote:
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Wieland Willker
          On: Q
          From: Bruce

          Responses on my amateur Q query have been most helpful; further ones would
          be also appreciated; I don't mean to stop the flow by picking up on
          Wieland's last paragraph. But merely as an interlude:

          WIELAND: One direction to go with the material we have is (what I already
          proposed years ago and what Eric Eve started), to reconstruct the text of
          Mark from Mt and Lk alone. Then compare the result with the Mark we have.

          BRUCE: Don't understand. If we had only Mt and Lk and were comparing them
          for the first time, we would find a lot of overlap (some of it with
          extensive rewording), and also some striking material that was unique to
          each (including cognate parts like the birth narratives, that are so
          different that they need to be treated as parallels rather than as
          overlaps). It would soon occur to someone to isolate the overlap material,
          and see if it made sense as a common source.

          That reconstructed possible source, I suppose, would contain (1) everything
          in Mk, except a few odd and even offensive bits, plus (2) everything now
          ascribed by some to Q.

          If then Mk were suddenly rediscovered and compared with that reconstruction,
          the conclusion would be, Hmm, our reconstructed source is actually two
          things, one part is in this new Mk, but the rest must be from somewhere
          else, call it R for Residue.

          No? We would then have a Two Source Theory.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst

          [Of course the other thing to do with Mt and Lk, these being imagined to be
          all that is available, and it having been said by an early Church Father
          that a conflated Gospel had once existed, would be to conflate the extant
          texts in order to arrive at the probable text of that Gospel. This would
          lead to terrible trouble in the birth narrative sections, and the hired
          hands would come back and say, What do you want us to do with this stuff
          which is narratively analogous but can't be conflated without simply
          sacrificing one or the other? And we, the Principal Investigators, as they
          are called on this side of the water, might say, In these cases, just leave
          those parts out, and conflate what is conflatable. OK, they would do that.
          Then they say, What about order differences? We answer: Never mind order, or
          arbitrarily follow Lk for the order, just put them together. And they would
          finish up by producing a hypothetical conflated Gospel. It would be longer
          than either, since it would include all material unique to Mt or Lk and not
          somehow contradicted in the other.

          Now assume the same result as above: Mk is suddenly discovered in the sands
          of Egypt. If it were then compared with the hypothetical Conflation Gospel,
          what would be the reaction?

          First, the investigators would congratulate themselves on finessing the
          birth narratives, since the recovered text agrees in not containing them. So
          far so good.

          But Second, they would be shocked at how short Mk is, compared with their
          rational prediction of its contents. What would be their next step,
          conceptually? (1) To conjecture a second, still lost, Conflation Gospel? I
          don't think this would square with the patristic testimony that started them
          off. There is no reason to think that a Conflation Gospel would have been
          written in two pieces, and enshrined in separate texts altogether, and
          anyway, the patristic statement mentioned one Conflation Gospel, not two. So
          that line seems to lead nowhere. (2) To work on their conception of how the
          conflation should have been done? Much more likely. They would then come, in
          sequence from the top, to something like Mt 5:3, 6 || Lk 6:21-22:

          "Blessed are [the] poor, for 'theirs] is the Kingdom of Heaven [= God].
          Blessed are [those] who hunger, for [they] shall be satisfied

          They need to find reason why this did not appear in the Conflated Gospel.
          What's the reason?]





          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • John C. Poirier
          ... I d like to ask a question at this point: If all we had were Matthew and Luke, why would anyone suspect that there even was a Mark? Both sides can make hay
          Message 4 of 15 , Jun 13, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Chuck Jones wrote:

            > That [the reconstruction of Mark from Matthew and Luke] was a brilliant thought exercise--very well said.

            I'd like to ask a question at this point: If all we had were Matthew and Luke, why would anyone suspect that there even was a Mark?

            Both sides can make hay out of this point: the Q believers can say "Well, see, we know that Mark *is* the explanation for Matthew and Luke, so Q is a good explanation for the double tradition", while Q skeptics can say "Yes, but you got there through an unnecessary assumption (you unfairly read the end of the book), which shows that you're forgetting the simplest forms of literary interrelationship" (for all we know, there could be an intermediary between Mark and Matthew/Luke, but we don't bother with that because it is logically unnecessary).

            I would agree with that the fact that we don't possess Q in the form of a document is a weak argument against it, but I don't believe Q skeptics have treated that as if it were much of an argument at all.


            John C. Poirier
            Middletown, Ohio


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Chuck Jones
            John, I think it would in fact be an interesting exercise to compare Mt and Lk passage by passage leaving Mk out of the equation. Here is what would
            Message 5 of 15 , Jun 13, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              John,

              I think it would in fact be an interesting exercise to compare Mt and Lk passage by passage leaving Mk out of the equation.

              Here is what would happen--there would be a fair number of passages in which Mt added material that favored his theology. There would be a fair number of passages in which Lk added material to favor his theology (e.g., the multiple insertions of the phrase "the holy spirit"). Because the additions flow in both directions, no one would ever agree on who came first, and someone would eventually posit a common lost source. (I hate to beat a dead horse, but there's no positing to it. Lk says he had multiple sources.)

              I'm sure Q scholars don't make too much of Q's not being extant, but I'll tell you that laymen who doubt Q make a huge deal out of it, at least in my limited experience.

              Chuck

              "John C. Poirier" <poirier@...> wrote:
              Chuck Jones wrote:

              > That [the reconstruction of Mark from Matthew and Luke] was a brilliant thought exercise--very well said.

              I'd like to ask a question at this point: If all we had were Matthew and Luke, why would anyone suspect that there even was a Mark?

              Both sides can make hay out of this point: the Q believers can say "Well, see, we know that Mark *is* the explanation for Matthew and Luke, so Q is a good explanation for the double tradition", while Q skeptics can say "Yes, but you got there through an unnecessary assumption (you unfairly read the end of the book), which shows that you're forgetting the simplest forms of literary interrelationship" (for all we know, there could be an intermediary between Mark and Matthew/Luke, but we don't bother with that because it is logically unnecessary).

              I would agree with that the fact that we don't possess Q in the form of a document is a weak argument against it, but I don't believe Q skeptics have treated that as if it were much of an argument at all.

              John C. Poirier
              Middletown, Ohio

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • E Bruce Brooks
              To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: John Poirier and Chuck Jones From: Bruce I think the discussion is veering off into Synoptic arguments per se, and it s my
              Message 6 of 15 , Jun 13, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                To: Synoptic
                Cc: GPG
                In Response To: John Poirier and Chuck Jones
                From: Bruce

                I think the discussion is veering off into Synoptic arguments per se, and
                it's my fault. Still, the arguments themselves are always interesting.

                JOHN: I'd like to ask a question at this point: If all we had were Matthew
                and Luke, why would anyone suspect that there even was a Mark?

                BRUCE: The name "Mark" (and the designation "Q") wouldn't exist. And we can
                assume there is no Patristic tradition either. Just those two books on the
                table, no other objects or concepts. That at least is the suggestion I made
                earlier.

                CHUCK [responding to John]: I think it would in fact be an interesting
                exercise to compare Mt and Lk passage by passage leaving Mk out of the
                equation.

                Here is what would happen--there would be a fair number of passages in which
                Mt added material that favored his theology. There would be a fair number of
                passages in which Lk added material to favor his theology (e.g., the
                multiple insertions of the phrase "the holy spirit"). . .

                BRUCE: It's a step too fast for me. For one thing, at the beginning of the
                experiment, how do know that something was "added" rather than "subtracted
                or omitted?" And how do we form a concept of "Matthew's theology?" Remember
                that the first inspectors of these texts thought in terms of "Christian
                theology," and regarded Matthew and Luke simply as reporters of the events
                underlying that theology. I am assuming something like that completely
                unschooled and unprejudiced approach. [And I openly admit that I am here
                trying to reimagine the situation, without being guided by the familiar
                concept of "source"].

                The early readers, on those assumptions, and with those safeguards against
                our own too familiar concepts, might well think of these texts as two
                different reports of the life of Jesus. They would judge the contents not by
                their implied theology, but simply as records of events. That is how people
                of the generation of Edwin Abbott and preceding seem to have taken it, hence
                the phrase "Triple Tradition" as the stories told by all three of their
                collated texts.

                It's hard to get rid of things you know; getting rid of things you know is a
                famous crux of methodology. But I think the first thing people might well
                do, at dawn on Synoptic Day One, would be to say, Now, how about these two
                histories of Jesus? They both tell the same stories, which is likely enough
                for two people reporting the same reality, so everything is OK. Then
                somebody else says, Well, but look at this story, it's only in Matthew. Then
                somebody else says, Well, Luke just forgot that one; no reason to suspect
                it. And some more organized spirit says, Let's sort this all out to see what
                is going on. Put the common material in Pile C, the Matthew unique material
                in Pile M, and the Lukan unique material in Pile L. And then we can look at
                it and try to see what these guys are up to, and if it is safe to believe
                both of them.

                It will shortly develop that there has to be a separate pile (call it M2)
                for Matthean material with a Lukan counterpart, but diverging so far that it
                is really a competing rather than a complementary version. The birth stories
                would probably define these categories. So we would have five piles, ranging
                from M1 on the extreme left (no counterpart at all in Lk) to M2 (= Matthew
                Two, things with a sort of counterpart in Lk, but not easily reconcilable),
                C (present in both and either identical or readily reconcilable; the
                variants just add information without raising issues), L2, and finally, on
                the far right, L1 (singular L material).

                We finish that sort, and then what do we do? It would probably depend on the
                character, and the amount, of what was in the piles.

                But we might reason: These two people are telling roughly the same story, as
                is very obvious in C, but with some variant versions implying different
                observations (M2, L2), and some unique material (M1, L1). Given our idea
                that Mt and Lk are both histories of the same lifetime, pile C is no
                problem, and M1 and L1, since they do not clash but simply supplement, are
                also, in principle, no problem. The problem is the parallel but divergent
                accounts, M2 and L2. We might defer until later the question of how we deal
                with that, and first try to form an impression of Mt and Lk from the rest of
                the material, the material that agrees with, or does not directly challenge,
                our expectation that we have here two reports of a single career. [This is
                not how Synoptic history in fact proceeded, so I here depart from historical
                parallels].

                Still reasoning on previous assumptions: We cannot expect to find out
                anything about authors aM and aL from the common (C) material, precisely
                because it is common to both. We might learn something about their
                grammatical proclivities, but that would be all. (At least, this seems to me
                to be a likely first expectation).

                But any authorial proclivities, or any other personal traits, ought to show
                up most clearly in the M1 and L1 material, where as far as we can tell each
                of the Gospel providers is operating - telling the story of Jesus - without
                interference from the other. If we had a task force handy, we might say, You
                guys take the M1 data set, and examine it for homogeneity. Is there a
                characteristic type of material that is present only here; are their quirks
                of language that unite this material (whether or not they are also present
                in the rest of Mt)?

                [I think this is where John Hawkins also went too fast; he had an idea of
                Matthean style based on all of Matthew. What if we start with the unique
                Matthean material instead. Would it come out the same way? Don't know til we
                try].

                It seems to me that the hypothesis of a "source" would arise late in the
                game, and only when the hypothesis of ultimate consistency had failed.
                Depending a little on how the attempt to isolate the unique proclivities of
                aMt and aLk had come out, and I haven't done that experiment, and so can't
                report its results. My guess would be that people might wind up being able
                to say: The C material and the M1/L1 material are all compatible, and all
                trustworthy, and need no explanation other than what each of our authors
                chose to put in or leave out, of a career about which, one way or another,
                they were equally well informed. Both Gospels are authentic and trustworthy.
                So far.

                I think it would be only with M2 and C2, the parallel but divergent
                accounts, that the question would get asked; OK, if Mt (say) is representing
                the knowledge of the early followers of Jesus, himself being after all one
                of them, as it says right here in his own account, and if there is no Luke
                among the disciple insiders, where is this Lukan thing coming from?

                And in that way [on the above assumption of the order in which the questions
                got asked], the question of "source" might arise, not for the C material,
                but for the L2 material. [or for the Matthean counterpart M2, but only for
                one of them, and with a prejudice against its authenticity]. The form of the
                question might be (still taking Lk as the version which the early pioneers
                might have chosen to regard as less plausible), Where are these Lukan
                distortions entering the picture?

                A "where from" question is likely to get answered by a "source" answer. But
                obviously if the question is asked in this way, any hypothetical "source"
                that is conjectured will not look at all like Q.

                Bruce

                E Bruce Brooks
                Warring States Project
                University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                [It happens that something very like this experiment was actually done with
                the Analects of Confucius, in the Han Dynasty. The different Analects
                chapters (20 in all) leave one with quite different ideas of the personality
                and teachings of Confucius. How was this potential problem handled by the
                first readers of the text? The earliest suggestion on record is that those
                differences are specious and not substantial; they are due to the differing
                interests and abilities of the different disciples who recorded the sayings
                of Confucius which they had themselves heard, or had particularly valued.
                This explanation happens not to work on some of the less recalcitrant
                material, or on some of the more egregious anachronisms, but it was for long
                regarded as a satisfactory solution, and is still held in many places].
              • Chuck Jones
                Bruce, When I said that sometimes Mt added to Lk s material and sometimes Lk added to Mt s I meant it in the most precise way possible--the Mt account has more
                Message 7 of 15 , Jun 13, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bruce,

                  When I said that sometimes Mt added to Lk's material and sometimes Lk added to Mt's I meant it in the most precise way possible--the Mt account has more words than Lk, and vice versa. My thesis is that the additions flow both ways.

                  When I said that the additions support Mt's or Lk's theology, and I was in fact assuming that their theologies are derived by looking at the overall documents. This is in fact not hard to do, and every commentary on each will outline their theological themes and the reasons for the conclusions. (And a slow read through each will highlight many of them without "expert" help!)

                  Below are two examples of additions. I chose two extreme examples where there are many more words in the longer versions. In most cases the longer version contains a few extra words.

                  Chuck

                  1. Mt 13:54-58 = Lk 4:16-30

                  Mt 13:54 He came to his home town and began to teach the people them');" onmouseout="return nd();" href="javascript:void(0);">* in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said, ‘Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? 55Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?’ 57And they took offence at him. But Jesus said to them, ‘Prophets are not without honour except in their own country and in their own house.’ 58And he did not do many deeds of power there, because of their unbelief.

                  Luke 4:16 When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:
                  18‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
                  because he has anointed me
                  to bring good news to the poor.
                  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
                  and recovery of sight to the blind,
                  to let the oppressed go free,
                  19to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.’
                  20And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21Then he began to say to them, ‘Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.’ 22All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said, ‘Is not this Joseph’s son?’ 23He said to them, ‘Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, “Doctor, cure yourself!” And you will say, “Do here also in your home town the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.” ’ 24And he said, ‘Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s home town. 25But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up for three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; 26yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. 27There were also many lepers terms leper and leprosy can refer to several diseases');"
                  onmouseout="return nd();" href="javascript:void(0);">* in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.’ 28When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with rage. 29They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. 30But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way.

                  2. Lk 6:20-23 = Mt 5:2-12

                  Lk 6:20 Then he looked up at his disciples and said:
                  ‘Blessed are you who are poor,
                  for yours is the kingdom of God.
                  21‘Blessed are you who are hungry now,
                  for you will be filled.
                  ‘Blessed are you who weep now,
                  for you will laugh.
                  22 ‘Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you cast out your name as evil');" onmouseout="return nd();" href="javascript:void(0);">* on account of the Son of Man. 23Rejoice on that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets.


                  Mt 5:2 Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying:
                  3 ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
                  4 ‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
                  5 ‘Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
                  6 ‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
                  7 ‘Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.
                  8 ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
                  9 ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
                  10 ‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
                  11 ‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falselyfalsely');" onmouseout="return nd();" href="javascript:void(0);">* on my account. 12Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. 13 -->Salt and Light -->
                  31 -->The Man with an Unclean Spirit -->




                  E Bruce Brooks <ebbrooks@...> wrote:
                  To: Synoptic
                  Cc: GPG
                  In Response To: John Poirier and Chuck Jones
                  From: Bruce

                  I think the discussion is veering off into Synoptic arguments per se, and
                  it's my fault. Still, the arguments themselves are always interesting.

                  JOHN: I'd like to ask a question at this point: If all we had were Matthew
                  and Luke, why would anyone suspect that there even was a Mark?

                  BRUCE: The name "Mark" (and the designation "Q") wouldn't exist. And we can
                  assume there is no Patristic tradition either. Just those two books on the
                  table, no other objects or concepts. That at least is the suggestion I made
                  earlier.

                  CHUCK [responding to John]: I think it would in fact be an interesting
                  exercise to compare Mt and Lk passage by passage leaving Mk out of the
                  equation.

                  Here is what would happen--there would be a fair number of passages in which
                  Mt added material that favored his theology. There would be a fair number of
                  passages in which Lk added material to favor his theology (e.g., the
                  multiple insertions of the phrase "the holy spirit"). . .

                  BRUCE: It's a step too fast for me. For one thing, at the beginning of the
                  experiment, how do know that something was "added" rather than "subtracted
                  or omitted?" And how do we form a concept of "Matthew's theology?" Remember
                  that the first inspectors of these texts thought in terms of "Christian
                  theology," and regarded Matthew and Luke simply as reporters of the events
                  underlying that theology. I am assuming something like that completely
                  unschooled and unprejudiced approach. [And I openly admit that I am here
                  trying to reimagine the situation, without being guided by the familiar
                  concept of "source"].

                  The early readers, on those assumptions, and with those safeguards against
                  our own too familiar concepts, might well think of these texts as two
                  different reports of the life of Jesus. They would judge the contents not by
                  their implied theology, but simply as records of events. That is how people
                  of the generation of Edwin Abbott and preceding seem to have taken it, hence
                  the phrase "Triple Tradition" as the stories told by all three of their
                  collated texts.

                  It's hard to get rid of things you know; getting rid of things you know is a
                  famous crux of methodology. But I think the first thing people might well
                  do, at dawn on Synoptic Day One, would be to say, Now, how about these two
                  histories of Jesus? They both tell the same stories, which is likely enough
                  for two people reporting the same reality, so everything is OK. Then
                  somebody else says, Well, but look at this story, it's only in Matthew. Then
                  somebody else says, Well, Luke just forgot that one; no reason to suspect
                  it. And some more organized spirit says, Let's sort this all out to see what
                  is going on. Put the common material in Pile C, the Matthew unique material
                  in Pile M, and the Lukan unique material in Pile L. And then we can look at
                  it and try to see what these guys are up to, and if it is safe to believe
                  both of them.

                  It will shortly develop that there has to be a separate pile (call it M2)
                  for Matthean material with a Lukan counterpart, but diverging so far that it
                  is really a competing rather than a complementary version. The birth stories
                  would probably define these categories. So we would have five piles, ranging
                  from M1 on the extreme left (no counterpart at all in Lk) to M2 (= Matthew
                  Two, things with a sort of counterpart in Lk, but not easily reconcilable),
                  C (present in both and either identical or readily reconcilable; the
                  variants just add information without raising issues), L2, and finally, on
                  the far right, L1 (singular L material).

                  We finish that sort, and then what do we do? It would probably depend on the
                  character, and the amount, of what was in the piles.

                  But we might reason: These two people are telling roughly the same story, as
                  is very obvious in C, but with some variant versions implying different
                  observations (M2, L2), and some unique material (M1, L1). Given our idea
                  that Mt and Lk are both histories of the same lifetime, pile C is no
                  problem, and M1 and L1, since they do not clash but simply supplement, are
                  also, in principle, no problem. The problem is the parallel but divergent
                  accounts, M2 and L2. We might defer until later the question of how we deal
                  with that, and first try to form an impression of Mt and Lk from the rest of
                  the material, the material that agrees with, or does not directly challenge,
                  our expectation that we have here two reports of a single career. [This is
                  not how Synoptic history in fact proceeded, so I here depart from historical
                  parallels].

                  Still reasoning on previous assumptions: We cannot expect to find out
                  anything about authors aM and aL from the common (C) material, precisely
                  because it is common to both. We might learn something about their
                  grammatical proclivities, but that would be all. (At least, this seems to me
                  to be a likely first expectation).

                  But any authorial proclivities, or any other personal traits, ought to show
                  up most clearly in the M1 and L1 material, where as far as we can tell each
                  of the Gospel providers is operating - telling the story of Jesus - without
                  interference from the other. If we had a task force handy, we might say, You
                  guys take the M1 data set, and examine it for homogeneity. Is there a
                  characteristic type of material that is present only here; are their quirks
                  of language that unite this material (whether or not they are also present
                  in the rest of Mt)?

                  [I think this is where John Hawkins also went too fast; he had an idea of
                  Matthean style based on all of Matthew. What if we start with the unique
                  Matthean material instead. Would it come out the same way? Don't know til we
                  try].

                  It seems to me that the hypothesis of a "source" would arise late in the
                  game, and only when the hypothesis of ultimate consistency had failed.
                  Depending a little on how the attempt to isolate the unique proclivities of
                  aMt and aLk had come out, and I haven't done that experiment, and so can't
                  report its results. My guess would be that people might wind up being able
                  to say: The C material and the M1/L1 material are all compatible, and all
                  trustworthy, and need no explanation other than what each of our authors
                  chose to put in or leave out, of a career about which, one way or another,
                  they were equally well informed. Both Gospels are authentic and trustworthy.
                  So far.

                  I think it would be only with M2 and C2, the parallel but divergent
                  accounts, that the question would get asked; OK, if Mt (say) is representing
                  the knowledge of the early followers of Jesus, himself being after all one
                  of them, as it says right here in his own account, and if there is no Luke
                  among the disciple insiders, where is this Lukan thing coming from?

                  And in that way [on the above assumption of the order in which the questions
                  got asked], the question of "source" might arise, not for the C material,
                  but for the L2 material. [or for the Matthean counterpart M2, but only for
                  one of them, and with a prejudice against its authenticity]. The form of the
                  question might be (still taking Lk as the version which the early pioneers
                  might have chosen to regard as less plausible), Where are these Lukan
                  distortions entering the picture?

                  A "where from" question is likely to get answered by a "source" answer. But
                  obviously if the question is asked in this way, any hypothetical "source"
                  that is conjectured will not look at all like Q.

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks
                  Warring States Project
                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                  [It happens that something very like this experiment was actually done with
                  the Analects of Confucius, in the Han Dynasty. The different Analects
                  chapters (20 in all) leave one with quite different ideas of the personality
                  and teachings of Confucius. How was this potential problem handled by the
                  first readers of the text? The earliest suggestion on record is that those
                  differences are specious and not substantial; they are due to the differing
                  interests and abilities of the different disciples who recorded the sayings
                  of Confucius which they had themselves heard, or had particularly valued.
                  This explanation happens not to work on some of the less recalcitrant
                  material, or on some of the more egregious anachronisms, but it was for long
                  regarded as a satisfactory solution, and is still held in many places].





                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Weaks, Joe
                  Wieland, et al, I am currently writing a dissertation reconstructing what we can of Mark from the text of triple tradition pericopes in Matthew and Luke
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jun 13, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Wieland, et al,

                    I am currently writing a dissertation reconstructing what we can of Mark from the text of triple tradition pericopes in Matthew and Luke (assuming an historical construct where it was "Q" that survived, and not Mark). Even at the early stages I am in, the results are shouting out. It calls into question the reliability of a reconstructed document in many regards.
                    By late summer, I hope to start posting reconstructed pericopes online for feedback.
                    Cheers,
                    Joe

                    Rev. Joseph Weaks, PhD (Cand)
                    Brite Divinity School, TCU, Fort Worth


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Wieland Willker
                    Sent: Tue 6/13/2006 6:05 AM
                    To: Synoptic-L
                    Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Query on Q

                    Exactly as you write Bruce.
                    What this experiment would show is that what one reconstructs is not necessarily the truth. It shows how weak the Q+Mark = Everything theory is.
                    What some have reconstructed as Q is probably quite far from the truth IMHO.*
                    It's not that simple: Q reconstructed. Period. Ready.
                  • E Bruce Brooks
                    To: Synoptic-L Cc: GPG In Response To: Wieland Willker From: Bruce WIELAND: Bruce, your theorizing is ok, but keep in mind that we are dealing with human
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jun 14, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      To: Synoptic-L
                      Cc: GPG
                      In Response To: Wieland Willker
                      From: Bruce

                      WIELAND: Bruce, your theorizing is ok, but keep in mind that we are dealing
                      with human action/interaction and this is not always rational or following
                      Ockham's razor.

                      BRUCE: I hadn't invoked Ockham's razor. As for rational, it is not so much
                      the rational I have been trying to capture, as the logically inevitable. As
                      Farmer says, and I think unanswerably, no matter how many complications
                      there are (the existence of other texts, etc), the Synoptics were still
                      written in SOME order: one first, another second, and the third last. This
                      is physically inevitable, no matter what their literary relationships may
                      be.

                      (I have tried recently to introduce into Synoptic discourse the possibility
                      that one or more of the Synoptics may be accretional, and thus not confined
                      to a single compositional date. The present argument assumes simple texts,
                      but this should still be valid as long as we specify that we are discussing
                      the final authorial or proprietary version of each).

                      Farmer (in Step One of his essay, previously cited) displays several
                      parallel passages. These are: Mt 15:32-29 || Mk 8:1-10, not in Lk [Feeding
                      of the Four Thousand], Mk 1:21-28 || Lk 4:31-37, not in Mt [Jesus in the
                      Synagogue at Capernaum], and Mt 8:7-10 || Lk 7:6-9, not in Mk [The
                      Centurion's Servant], plus the triple passage Mt 8:2-4 || Mk 1:40-45 || Lk
                      5:12-16 [Healing of a Leper]. Farmer shows, again I think persuasively, that
                      where two of the three Synoptics have common material and the third lacks a
                      parallel, the nature of the parallel two passages is such that a literary
                      relationship must obtain. That is, no matter how much else may be true, of
                      these passages or of others in the Synoptics, there are literary
                      relationships linking all, not just some, of the Synoptics. That is, there
                      really is a Synoptic Problem, and the answer to it has the form of a
                      three-way relationship. If solving it does not remove all doubt from every
                      line of the texts involved, well, fine, we can take up that residue when it
                      becomes apparent exactly what it consists of. But whether Synoptic
                      relationships are the whole story or only part of it, they exist as a
                      problem, and the problem can be worked on, and perhaps solved.

                      As for how many possible solutions to it there may be, leaving aside the
                      presence of other texts in the final answer, that too is amenable to logic.
                      I think that 25 covers the territory entirely. There are not any other
                      variants. It's like combinatorics: you can list all the possibilities. It
                      then remains to see if some possibilities can be eliminated, and if so,
                      which ones remain as viable contenders.

                      WIELAND: It is perfectly possible that
                      - Lk and Mt used more sources, perhaps similar ones, perhaps catechetic
                      manuals.

                      BRUCE: Specifically allowed for in the above. It doesn't prevent our
                      addressing the Synoptic part of the problem.

                      WIELAND: - Lk and Mt knew each other and they corresponded.

                      BRUCE: This is merely one way that Lk/Mt might have been in contact. It is
                      necessary for the Synoptic Problem only to determine that they WERE in
                      contact. Farmer, to my mind, has established that each pair of the Synoptic
                      authors were in contact, in one direction or another.

                      WIELAND: - Lk only later got to know Mt and copied only a few things.

                      BRUCE: Same reply. The mode of their acquaintance is immaterial.

                      [But I add parenthetically: If you mean to suggest that Lk was partly
                      written before Lk made contact with Mt's text, I happen to agree. I devote a
                      chapter to it in a vaguely planned book. That is (in my opinion, and I
                      haven't space here to give the analysis that leads me to it; some points
                      have appeared previously in Synoptic), there are at least two phases of Lk,
                      one when he knew only Mk, and followed it extensively, and a second one
                      where he made contact with Mt, leading to rearrangement of his previous text
                      and the addition of a lot of new material from, or (in the case of the birth
                      narratives) adversatively inspired by, Mt. I think these complications are
                      important. But even they don't prevent us from chronologizing the final
                      stage of Lk, which even on this view would come after Mt, and would have
                      used Mt. The complication doesn't invalidate the conclusion].

                      WIELAND: - oral traditions have been used

                      BRUCE: To what is this an alternative? If it means that rather than making
                      up his new material, Luke reflected the notions of others, who themselves
                      made it up, that is perfectly possible. But neither this complication nor
                      the addition of written sources to the three-way picture will invalidate the
                      solution of the three-way picture. However complex the picture, the three
                      Synoptics are in some sort of relationship.

                      WIELAND: - short written notes existed, transferred between various
                      Christian groups

                      BRUCE: Same answer.

                      WIELAND: - Lk or Mt used another document based on something like Q.

                      BRUCE: Same answer. This is merely multiplying ways of stating the same
                      possible complication.

                      WIELAND: - post-apostolic editing took place.

                      BRUCE: What "apostolic" means here I do not know. I suspect it means "during
                      the time of the Evangelists who wrote the respective Gospels," and if so, I
                      think it may miss a point I was trying to make in an earlier exchange. It
                      was this: There are roughly two periods in the history of any text: (1) an
                      authorial period, when it is still being formed under the original authors
                      or their institutional successors. This period may last for a few hours or a
                      few centuries. There is only one copy of the text in existence throughout
                      this period, however long it may be, and it is held by the authors or more
                      generally by the institution in which they function: a local church, or
                      whatever you like. (2) a public period, when the text begins to be copied
                      for others to read. It is here that scribal errors are possible, and it is
                      here that we have, or can hope to have, outside witnesses to the text (and
                      to any scribal errors introduced into it). But any formative processes (and
                      I would class "editing" among them) are confined to the first or authorial
                      period. (3) In exceptional cases, such as happened to Acts in the Bezae
                      manuscript, a copyist may take a work in hand to expand or otherwise
                      drastically improve. Or a Marcion may expurgate a previously existing
                      Gospel. This sort of thing effectively reopens the text to author-type
                      formative processes. There are Chinese examples also; such things do happen.
                      But it is usually possible to detect them by conventional text-critical
                      means, because they happen in the time period when manuscript copies may in
                      principle exist. In the case of Acts in Bezae, we rely on those manuscripts
                      to establish exactly what it is that the Bezae person has done to Acts.

                      As for post-"authorial" editing of Mark, I think it is possible to show
                      (though again, not within the proper confines of this note; I think I am
                      already over my allowed six lines) that the text of Mark varied not at all
                      between the time that Matthew used it, and the time that Luke used it. That
                      is, I think the sequence Mk > Mt > Lk can be directly and not inferentially
                      demonstrated. If so, the "minor agreements" (not to mention the Major
                      Agreements) merely show that the second of Luke or Matthew rather liked a
                      change that the other had introduced into his assimilated version of the
                      Markan material.

                      But if Mk had undergone changes between its use by one Synoptist and the
                      next, that would be a finesse that we would discover on checking off all
                      Synoptic features and traits that were accounted for by our Synoptic
                      relationship picture. There might be such a residue, or there might not; we
                      don't know a priori. The first thing to do on arriving at a Synoptic theory
                      (and I still suggest that the previous argument leaves the Ropes Hypothesis
                      as the sole survivor) would naturally be to eliminate from all three texts
                      everything that is accounted for by that theory, and then see what is left
                      to deal with.

                      At that point, an interim-editing theory (like the triple Mark theory of
                      Wendling and others) might emerge, or a hypothetical text might need to be
                      conjectured, or anything at all. So . . .

                      WIELAND: The truth is IMHO in any case more complicated than simply Mk > Mt
                      >> Lk
                      or something like that.

                      BRUCE: Maybe. As now repeatedly acknowledged. But that does not prevent a
                      Synoptic core relationship from existing, and from being recovered.

                      Bruce

                      E Bruce Brooks
                      Warring States Project
                      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                    • E Bruce Brooks
                      To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Wieland Willker On: Synoptic Relations [under rubric Query on Q ] From: Bruce BRUCE [Previously, and quoting Farmer]: the
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jun 14, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        To: Synoptic
                        Cc: GPG
                        In Response To: Wieland Willker
                        On: Synoptic Relations [under rubric "Query on Q"]
                        From: Bruce

                        BRUCE [Previously, and quoting Farmer]: the Synoptics were still written in
                        SOME order: one first, another second, and the third last. This is
                        physically inevitable

                        WIELAND [In response]: Why is that? Perhaps Mt and Lk were written at the
                        same time.

                        BRUCE: Possible, but as it happens, excluded by Farmer's own further
                        demonstration. He shows that the closeness of wording between ANY TWO of the
                        Synoptics is such as to be best explained by one of them being a source for
                        the other. This requires some time differential.

                        WIELAND: Or what about this: Mt and/or Lk used some earlier draft of Mk,
                        then later Mk was slightly revised. Then also Lk got to know Mt and changed
                        a few points in his edition. Who is earlier? It's all not that simple.

                        BRUCE: Already asked and answered. But to repeat: The accretional
                        possibility does potentially complicate the simple three-way Synoptic
                        diagram. My suggested solution was that we take the final state of each
                        Synoptic as the thing with which we are presently concerned. If we get
                        two-way relationships (that is, text A now seems to be using B, but in a few
                        moments, text B seems to be using A), then multiple stages *within Synoptic
                        purview* may need to be recognized.

                        My own researches have kept that possibility in mind; I have tried to be
                        alert for signs of such situations (for samples of reciprocal relationship
                        between two texts, see Appendix 3 of my book, The Original Analects, already
                        immodestly referred to). As earlier hinted, my best sense of things at this
                        moment is that the complex accretion process in Mk is already finished by
                        the time Mt and Lk come along, so that this particular growth situation need
                        not complicate the Synoptic problem. (The growth of Lk is another matter).
                        Thus:

                        BRUCE [Previously]: As for post-"authorial" editing of Mark, I think it is
                        possible to show...that the text of Mark varied not at all between the time
                        that Matthew used it, and the time that Luke
                        used it.

                        WIELAND: Not at all? How do you know? You know "The Great Omission" by Lk?

                        BRUCE: Thought you'd never ask. But as I may have mentioned before, we
                        Chinese are polite people, and I can't without an appearance of
                        insubordination expound on this list what has been determined by the current
                        SBL leadership to be of no NT interest. So I will have to defer this
                        particular question until I can find a venue that will at once (1) avoid
                        offense to the NT powers that be, and (2) give me reasonable priority
                        protection. Maybe I will get a lecture invitation (as at UNC and Yale last
                        fall), or maybe the local SBL committee, unlike the national, will look with
                        favor on that proposal (as they did with another proposal this past April).
                        Meanwhile, with regret, I must give you what we over here call a rain check
                        for that particular answer.

                        BRUCE [Previously, in summing up]: that [complication] does not prevent a
                        Synoptic core relationship from existing, and from being recovered.

                        WIELAND: ok, but how relevant is this? To simply know Lk used Mt, what does
                        it say? Almost nothing, if we don't know in what way, at what time and to
                        what extent.

                        BRUCE: Good Grief, Wieland; it says a lot. It eliminates many possible
                        Synoptic theories from further consideration, thus greatly clearing the
                        board of distractions and analytical dead ends. It establishes a time
                        sequence and a textual relationship, both of which, as you will know, have
                        been minutely debated (in both directions) in past decades. At *what time*
                        (what year of the clock) this took place is not material to estimating the
                        *nature* of the use made of Mt by Lk, which is the core of the Synoptic
                        Problem (thought it would be fun to know). And as to exactly what of Mt aLk
                        used, and to what end? Well, the ability to ask and investigate that
                        problem, the confidence to work on that and not on seventeen other things,
                        is what has been gained by the present argument.

                        It looks like an advantage to me. As a scientist, you want more. OK, I will
                        try to provide it, but in justice to the things I am supposed to be doing
                        instead, and in deference to the proprieties which as a Chinese person I am
                        inclined to respect, it may take me a little while.

                        Best wishes,

                        Bruce

                        E Bruce Brooks
                        Warring States Project
                        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                      • Emmanuel Fritsch
                        Chuck Jones said:
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jun 19, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Chuck Jones said:
                          << 2. To me, the fact that Q is not extant today is the single most
                          irrelevant argument made against it.
                          [..] Mk is the only one that is still extant. There is nothing at all
                          surprising that Q, if it existed, would not be extant. It would be
                          surprising if in fact it were >>

                          More over, imagine the second century christian holding both Q and Luke
                          (or Matthew) and owning only a single set of ink and papyrus to copy
                          only one of them. Which one would have he copy ? The most complete, "so
                          that nothing will be lost".

                          In that perspective, the absence of proto-gospels is quite normal, and
                          may not be found as a great arguments against their existence.

                          Chuck Jones said:
                          << Mt omitted much more of Mk than Lk did. Did he also omit large
                          portions of Q? Is some of the L material from Q? We'll never know
                          (without an archeological discovery like that of Thomas). >>

                          As I used to say, Boismard tried to do it, and many points in his work
                          look still valid.

                          Emmanuel.

                          > Bruce,
                          >
                          > Two observations:
                          >
                          > 1. That was brilliant thought excercise--very well said.
                          > 2. To me, the fact that Q is not extant today is the single most
                          > irrelevant argument made against it. Lk says in his prologues there
                          > were "many" written accounts of Jesus and that he researched them for
                          > his book. All but Mk (or Mt) are lost.
                          >
                          > The literary style of Mk, Mt and Lk align with this prologue
                          > observation--in form the synoptics (including Mk) are collections of
                          > brief, stand-alone vignettes about things Jesus said or did. So Mk had
                          > at least one (lost) source. Mt had M, Lk had L (he says "many"
                          > sources, actually), Mt and Lk had Mk. Mk is the only one that is still
                          > extant. There is nothing at all surprising that Q, if it existed,
                          > would not be extant. It would be surprising if in fact it were.
                          >

                          >
                          > Chuck
                          >
                          > E Bruce Brooks <ebbrooks@...
                          > <mailto:ebbrooks%40resgs.umass.edu>> wrote:
                          > To: Synoptic
                          > In Response To: Wieland Willker
                          > On: Q
                          > From: Bruce
                          >
                          > Responses on my amateur Q query have been most helpful; further ones would
                          > be also appreciated; I don't mean to stop the flow by picking up on
                          > Wieland's last paragraph. But merely as an interlude:
                          >
                          > WIELAND: One direction to go with the material we have is (what I already
                          > proposed years ago and what Eric Eve started), to reconstruct the text of
                          > Mark from Mt and Lk alone. Then compare the result with the Mark we have.
                          >
                          > BRUCE: Don't understand. If we had only Mt and Lk and were comparing them
                          > for the first time, we would find a lot of overlap (some of it with
                          > extensive rewording), and also some striking material that was unique to
                          > each (including cognate parts like the birth narratives, that are so
                          > different that they need to be treated as parallels rather than as
                          > overlaps). It would soon occur to someone to isolate the overlap material,
                          > and see if it made sense as a common source.
                          >
                          > That reconstructed possible source, I suppose, would contain (1)
                          > everything
                          > in Mk, except a few odd and even offensive bits, plus (2) everything now
                          > ascribed by some to Q.
                          >
                          > If then Mk were suddenly rediscovered and compared with that
                          > reconstruction,
                          > the conclusion would be, Hmm, our reconstructed source is actually two
                          > things, one part is in this new Mk, but the rest must be from somewhere
                          > else, call it R for Residue.
                          >
                          > No? We would then have a Two Source Theory.
                          >
                          > Bruce
                          >
                          > E Bruce Brooks
                          > Warring States Project
                          > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                          >
                          > [Of course the other thing to do with Mt and Lk, these being imagined
                          > to be
                          > all that is available, and it having been said by an early Church Father
                          > that a conflated Gospel had once existed, would be to conflate the extant
                          > texts in order to arrive at the probable text of that Gospel. This would
                          > lead to terrible trouble in the birth narrative sections, and the hired
                          > hands would come back and say, What do you want us to do with this stuff
                          > which is narratively analogous but can't be conflated without simply
                          > sacrificing one or the other? And we, the Principal Investigators, as they
                          > are called on this side of the water, might say, In these cases, just
                          > leave
                          > those parts out, and conflate what is conflatable. OK, they would do that.
                          > Then they say, What about order differences? We answer: Never mind
                          > order, or
                          > arbitrarily follow Lk for the order, just put them together. And they
                          > would
                          > finish up by producing a hypothetical conflated Gospel. It would be longer
                          > than either, since it would include all material unique to Mt or Lk
                          > and not
                          > somehow contradicted in the other.
                          >
                          > Now assume the same result as above: Mk is suddenly discovered in the
                          > sands
                          > of Egypt. If it were then compared with the hypothetical Conflation
                          > Gospel,
                          > what would be the reaction?
                          >
                          > First, the investigators would congratulate themselves on finessing the
                          > birth narratives, since the recovered text agrees in not containing
                          > them. So
                          > far so good.
                          >
                          > But Second, they would be shocked at how short Mk is, compared with their
                          > rational prediction of its contents. What would be their next step,
                          > conceptually? (1) To conjecture a second, still lost, Conflation Gospel? I
                          > don't think this would square with the patristic testimony that
                          > started them
                          > off. There is no reason to think that a Conflation Gospel would have been
                          > written in two pieces, and enshrined in separate texts altogether, and
                          > anyway, the patristic statement mentioned one Conflation Gospel, not
                          > two. So
                          > that line seems to lead nowhere. (2) To work on their conception of
                          > how the
                          > conflation should have been done? Much more likely. They would then
                          > come, in
                          > sequence from the top, to something like Mt 5:3, 6 || Lk 6:21-22:
                          >
                          > "Blessed are [the] poor, for 'theirs] is the Kingdom of Heaven [= God].
                          > Blessed are [those] who hunger, for [they] shall be satisfied
                          >
                          > They need to find reason why this did not appear in the Conflated Gospel.
                          > What's the reason?]
                          >
                          > __________________________________________________
                          > Do You Yahoo!?
                          > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          > http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • John C. Poirier
                          ... The recent flurry of posts on the reasons for believing in Q all seem to identify the Q hypothesis strictly with any imagination that there is a sayings
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jun 19, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Emmanuel Fritsch wrote (supporting Chuck Jones's point that the lack of Q's continued existence is a poor argument against the Q hypothesis):

                            > . . . imagine the second century christian holding both Q and Luke (or Matthew) and owning only a single
                            > set of ink and papyrus to copy only one of them. Which one would have he copy ? The most complete, "so
                            > that nothing will be lost".

                            The recent flurry of posts on the reasons for believing in Q all seem to identify the Q hypothesis strictly with any imagination that there is a sayings source behind the gospels. May I remind everyone (for what is probably the sixth or seventh time) that the "Q hypothesis" refers strictly not to arguments given for a sayings source *simpliciter*, but rather to a sayings source used *independently* by Matthew and Luke. In other words, if you (or I) believe that there probably *was* a sayings source behind the gospels, but that it was probably used directly only by Matthew, with its words mediated to Luke through Matthew (or vice versa), then you (or I) simply don't believe in Q as such.

                            What I'm saying is that probably three fourths of the arguments being given here for Q do not strike in the least bit against Q skepticism, because in fact those arguments confuse "Q" with the appeal to *any* posited sayings source as an ultimate source for the double tradition. I don't believe in Q, yet I believe that there probably is a sayings source lying in the background of the double tradition. Giving reasons for why there probably was a sayings source does not make it necessary or probable that Luke didn't know Matthew (obviating the need for that sayings source to be an independent source for both gospels), or vice versa.


                            John C. Poirier
                            Middletown, Ohio




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Chuck Jones
                            John, I m curious about your observation I ve snipped below. How is it that you believe in a source behind the double tradition but don t believe in Q? I
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jun 19, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              John,

                              I'm curious about your observation I've snipped below.

                              How is it that you believe in a source behind the double tradition but don't believe in Q? I understand Q to be a shorthand way of referring to that source.

                              Chuck

                              John wrote:
                              I don't believe in Q, yet I believe that there probably is a sayings source lying in the background of the double tradition.








                              ---------------------------------
                              Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • John C. Poirier
                              Chuck Jones wonders about the logic of my statement: I don t believe in Q, yet I believe that there probably is a sayings source lying in the background of
                              Message 14 of 15 , Jun 19, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Chuck Jones wonders about the logic of my statement: "I don't believe in Q, yet I believe that there probably is a sayings source lying in the background of the double tradition."

                                I'll try to explain it in a different way: Those who believe that Luke used Matthew, or Matthew used Luke, must (?) hold an opinion about where the first among those two gospels got the sayings. Now Goulder thinks that Matthew made many of them up. But what about those of us who don't think Matthew made them up, and who think Matthew likely derived them from a source? Would believing that imply that we believe in Q? Not according to the true definition of Q, which consists of two propositions: (1) that there was a sayings source behind the double tradition, and (2) that that source was used independently by Matthew and Luke. Believing in (1) but not (2) amounts to not believing in Q *per se*, although it amounts in believing in a source that looks like Q. The difference is not in what comprises the source, but in how it was transmitted to Matthew and Luke.

                                John C. Poirier
                                Middletown, Ohio


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Chuck Jones
                                John, Got it. Makes perfect sense. Thanks, Chuck John C. Poirier wrote: Chuck Jones wonders about the logic of my statement: I don t
                                Message 15 of 15 , Jun 20, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  John,

                                  Got it. Makes perfect sense.

                                  Thanks,

                                  Chuck

                                  "John C. Poirier" <poirier@...> wrote:
                                  Chuck Jones wonders about the logic of my statement: "I don't believe in Q, yet I believe that there probably is a sayings source lying in the background of the double tradition."

                                  I'll try to explain it in a different way: Those who believe that Luke used Matthew, or Matthew used Luke, must (?) hold an opinion about where the first among those two gospels got the sayings. Now Goulder thinks that Matthew made many of them up. But what about those of us who don't think Matthew made them up, and who think Matthew likely derived them from a source? Would believing that imply that we believe in Q? Not according to the true definition of Q, which consists of two propositions: (1) that there was a sayings source behind the double tradition, and (2) that that source was used independently by Matthew and Luke. Believing in (1) but not (2) amounts to not believing in Q *per se*, although it amounts in believing in a source that looks like Q. The difference is not in what comprises the source, but in how it was transmitted to Matthew and Luke.



                                  .





                                  ---------------------------------
                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                  Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.