Re: [Synoptic-L] Source reconstruction
- Bruce Brooks wrote:
> ....... one could sayBruce,
> that a doublet in Mt is here defined as two similar Mt sayings, of which one
> strongly resembles something in Mk. (So also for the Lukan case).
Actually it doesn't work quite like that. We can often only see which of the
pair is taken from Mark by observing the context. Thus for instance Matthew
does not generally appear to be using Mark in the 'Sermon on the Mount', and
Luke does not generally appear to be using Mark in the major part
(9:51-18:14) of the so-called 'Journey to Jerusalem'.
> The question would then be: do the non-Markan members of these doubletWhere they are different, they tend to look more original than their Markan
> pairs have anything in common?
counterparts. The IQP go further (too far in my opinion) as they appear to
ignore Mark entirely in their attempt to reconstruct Q.
> I would like to see that argued out withoutIt would be possible to argue convincingly for the general greater
> superimposing any further experimental assumptions.
originality of the non-Markan versions, and for the *occasional* greater
originality of the Markan version. But to set out all the arguments in
detail would be a major undertaking.
> ....... I merely note that my interest, as one new toO.K. Here is an outline of the information you asked for, with the
> his procedure, would be in seeing the first step argument completed, and an
> inventory of the resulting conjectural Source given, before proceeding
> For instance: How much of each of his A, B, C, and D categories is supplied
> by this first step? How many of the Source sayings identified by this first
> step are common to Matthew and Luke?
non-Markan versions listed first. Note the implication that a few of the
Markan versions have been considerably altered. In these cases (indicated by
*) the 'parallel' is more like a parallel with what I take to be Matthew's
or Luke's copy of a Markan derivative of the source saying.
< indicates that the comparison involves only a small part of the saying.
Sayings which were later allocated to section A:
Lighting a lamp Lk 11:33 // 8:16
Law * Mt 5:18 // 24:35 Lk 16:17 // 21:33
Hand/eye Mt 5:30,29 // 18:8-9
Divorce Mt 5:32 // 19:9
Ask < Mt 7:8 // 21:22
Sayings which were later allocated to section B:
Harvest * Mt 9:37-38 // 13:24-30
Instructions < Lk 10:3-11 // 9:3-5
Instructions < Mt 10:7 // 4:17
Hated/endure Mt 10:22 // 24 9b,13
Through all Israel * Mt 10:23 // 24:14
Hand over/words Mt 10:17-20 // 24:9a Lk 12:11-12 // 21:12-15
Nothing hidden < Lk 12:2 // 8:17
Nothing hidden < Mt 10:32-33 // 16:27 Lk 12:8-9 // 9:26
Division * Mt 10:34-36 // 10:21 Lk 12:51,53 // 21:16
Worthy/cross Mt 10:38 // 16:24 Lk 14:27 // 9:23
Save/lose Mt 10:39 // 16:25 Lk 17:33 // 9:24
Whoever welcomes Mt 10:40 // 18:5 Lk 10:16 // 9:48
For/against Lk 11:23 // 9:50
Sayings which were later allocated to section C:
Kingdom come! < Mt 6:9a,12 // 6:14
Request for a sign < Mt 12:39 // 16:4
Ruler/servant Mt 23:11 // 20:26
Mulberry tree Mt 17:20 // 21:21
Treasure in heaven Mt 6:19 // 19:21 Lk 12:33 // 18:22
Much given Mt 25:29 // 13:12 Lk 12:48 // 8:18
Reward * Mt 19:28 // 19:29 Lk 22:18-30 // 18:29-30
Last/first Mt 20:16 // 19:30
Sayings which were later allocated to section D:
Seats/greetings Mt 11:43 // 20:46
False prophets Mt 24:11 // 24:24
Look he is... Mt 24:26 // 24:23 Lk 17:23 // 21:8
Watch/thief Mt 24:42 // 25:13
> If there were, say, an International Ron Project, its massive publicationsIf there is any publisher lurking out there who would be interested in 'An
> would presumably include a page or two of such stepwise exposition.
alternative Q - basis, construction and description', I could guarantee the
alternative would by comparison make the standard Q look like a disorganized
mess. What I could not guarantee is to match the output of the IQP
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm