147Re: Q yes or no?
- Mar 1, 1998At 11:08 AM 3/1/98 -0600, Jack Kilmon wrote:
>Jim Deardorff wrote:Paul,
>> At 12:51 PM 2/28/98 -0600, Paul Miller wrote:
>> >Its difficult to deal with the synoptic problem without bumping into the
>> >question of the existence of the Q document as a source for Matthew and
>> >Luke. Since I am currently struggling with this, I would like to see a
>> >debate on synoptic-l, assuming the interest is there, on the evidence
>> >for or against a source document used by Matthew and Luke.
>> > Q yes or no?
>> > Paul Miller
>> So in that case there was indeed a "Q" in the sense that some scholars over
>> a century ago postulated, but the writer of Luke couldn't make much use
>>of it and instead relied on Matthew while preferring Mark.
>I have struggled with the "Luke used Matthew" paradigm for some weeks
>now and and find nothing on which I can get a firm grip. The minor
>Matthew agreements dont do it for me without agreements in the order of
What did you mean by this last? The lack of agreement in order of the "Q"
verses? If so, what's wrong with the thesis that the writer of Luke much
preferred Mark over Matthew, detested Matthew's anti-gentile statements, and
thus held no respect for the Gospel of Matthew. Yet he was forced to use
that gospel in order to fill in all the important Judaistic and other matter
that Mark omits. So he took the Matthean verses Mark omits in whatever
order he wished, and often in different contexts.
> I run into real problems from a source critical basis.Yet, many others find that Matthew must have been written in the Hebrew
>see is Luke using a Q that is not Matthew's Q. Matthew seems, to me, to
>along with a translational Greek Q since Matthew does not convince me
>he was competent in the Semitic source...in this case, Aramaic. [...]
tongue. John Chapman, in _Matthew, Mark and Luke_, (1937) Chap. 16, sets
forth a lot of reasons why Matthew looks like it is the translation of an
Aramaic original, and I think some of these are valid. Matthew Black has
done the same; the instance I can remember best is that the "Sea" of Galilee
would not have been called a sea if the first gospel had been written in
Greek, but rather a lake. The writer of Mark, in translating Matthew's
Hebraic, simply translated it into Greek and so kept "sea", while the writer
of Luke did correct "sea" into "lake" most of the time. In _Introduction to
the New Testament_ by Theodor Zahn (1909) there are other good arguments on
Matthew's Hebraic source (pp. 573, 576-580). Many detailed textual
instances supporting Matthew having originally been written in Aramaic are
supplied by Frank Zimmermann's in _The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels_
(1979, chap. 2), and some of these seem valid. Further reasons are supplied
by B. C. Butler in _The Originality of St Matthew_ (1951, chap. 10).
I've been quite interested in learning why reasons such as these, no doubt
known to 19th-century scholars, were ignored, starting back then, in order
to favor Markan priority (theological commitment, I find), and why
20th-century scholars went along with it.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>