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

proof that Q existed

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    H. T. Fleddermann notes the occurrence of double doublets in Matthew and Luke where, in each doublet, the repeated material occurs once in the triple
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 30, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      H. T. Fleddermann notes the occurrence of "double doublets" in Matthew
      and Luke where, in each doublet, the repeated material occurs "once in
      the triple tradition and once in the double tradition" - pages 5 and 6
      in H. T. Fleddermann, "Mark and Q", (Leuven,1995).

      Examples are:
      (a) the Cross Saying in Mt 16.24, Mk 8.34, Lk 9.23 and Mt 10.38, Lk
      14.27
      (b) To One Who Has in Mt 13.12, Mk 4.25, Lk 8.18 and Mt 25.29, Lk 19.26
      (c) Losing One's Life in Mt 16.26, Mk 8.35, Lk 9.26 and Mt 10.39, Lk
      17.33
      (d) Jesus and the Son of Man in Mt 16.27, Mk 8.38, Lk 9.26 and Mt
      10.32-33, Lk 12.8-9.

      Fleddermann concludes that double doublets such as these, "prove the
      existence of Q" (Mk+Q, page 8).

      Do others agree with him?

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
      SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
      10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
      Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
    • Stevan Davies
      ... Also in Thomas 55 ... Also in Thomas 41 ... I don t see why, on the Farrer/Goodacre thesis this wouldn t just show that Matthew found those sayings
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 30, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        > From: "Brian E. Wilson"

        > H. T. Fleddermann notes the occurrence of "double doublets" in Matthew
        > and Luke where, in each doublet, the repeated material occurs "once in
        > the triple tradition and once in the double tradition" - pages 5 and 6
        > in H. T. Fleddermann, "Mark and Q", (Leuven,1995).
        >
        > Examples are:
        > (a) the Cross Saying in Mt 16.24, Mk 8.34, Lk 9.23 and Mt 10.38, Lk
        > 14.27

        Also in Thomas 55

        > (b) To One Who Has in Mt 13.12, Mk 4.25, Lk 8.18 and Mt 25.29, Lk 19.26

        Also in Thomas 41

        > (c) Losing One's Life in Mt 16.26, Mk 8.35, Lk 9.26 and Mt 10.39, Lk
        > 17.33
        > (d) Jesus and the Son of Man in Mt 16.27, Mk 8.38, Lk 9.26 and Mt
        > 10.32-33, Lk 12.8-9.
        >
        > Fleddermann concludes that double doublets such as these, "prove the
        > existence of Q" (Mk+Q, page 8).
        >
        > Do others agree with him?

        I don't see why, on the Farrer/Goodacre thesis this wouldn't just
        show that Matthew found those sayings particularly useful and used
        them twice (followed by Luke).

        Steve
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Brian Wilson wrote (SNIP) - ... Steve Davies responded (SNIP) - ... Interesting! I think Fleddermann would want to come back at you, however. He writes (Mk+Q,
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 1, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Brian Wilson wrote (SNIP) -
          >H. T. Fleddermann notes the occurrence of "double doublets" in Matthew
          >and Luke where, in each doublet, the repeated material occurs "once in
          >the triple tradition and once in the double tradition" - pages 5 and 6
          >in H. T. Fleddermann, "Mark and Q", (Leuven,1995)...
          >...Fleddermann concludes that double doublets such as these, "prove the
          >existence of Q" (Mk+Q, page 8).

          Steve Davies responded (SNIP) -
          >I don't see why, on the Farrer/Goodacre thesis this wouldn't just
          >show that Matthew found those sayings particularly useful and used
          >them twice (followed by Luke).

          Interesting! I think Fleddermann would want to come back at you,
          however. He writes (Mk+Q, page 213) -

          "The differences between Mark and Q in the overlap texts stem from
          Marcan redaction. Everywhere in the overlap texts we have seen that
          starting from the Q text we can explain the Marcan text using the
          redactional techniques of Mark."

          In other words, in all fifty or sixty verses of "Mark-Q overlap"
          material, the Markan version of the wording is apparently always less
          primitive than the double tradition version. According to Fleddermann,
          it would seem, on the Farrer hypothesis, that Matthew and/or Luke
          managed to produce fifty or sixty verses of more primitive double
          tradition material by editing Mark's wording.

          Just comparing the double tradition wording and the Markan wording in
          the overlap passages, my immediate reaction is that the double tradition
          wording does often seem to be more primitive than the wording in
          parallel to Mark. But I am open to be convinced otherwise.

          A problem for Fleddermann, of course, is that there are double doublets
          not just in Matthew and Luke, but also in Matthew and Mark, and in Mark
          and Luke. How would he interpret those, I wonder. And why should the
          same pattern occur in all three pairs of synoptic gospels?

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON

          E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
          SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
          10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
          Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
        • Stevan Davies
          ... BRIAN ... And don t forget Thomas where the overlaps with other synoptic materials are everywhere. In working up a thesis on how it is that Mark used
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 1, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            > Steve Davies responded (SNIP) -
            > >I don't see why, on the Farrer/Goodacre thesis this wouldn't just
            > >show that Matthew found those sayings particularly useful and used
            > >them twice (followed by Luke).

            BRIAN
            > Interesting! I think Fleddermann would want to come back at you,
            > however. He writes (Mk+Q, page 213) -
            >
            > "The differences between Mark and Q in the overlap texts stem from
            > Marcan redaction. Everywhere in the overlap texts we have seen that
            > starting from the Q text we can explain the Marcan text using the
            > redactional techniques of Mark."
            >
            > In other words, in all fifty or sixty verses of "Mark-Q overlap"
            > material, the Markan version of the wording is apparently always less
            > primitive than the double tradition version. According to Fleddermann,
            > it would seem, on the Farrer hypothesis, that Matthew and/or Luke
            > managed to produce fifty or sixty verses of more primitive double
            > tradition material by editing Mark's wording.
            >
            > Just comparing the double tradition wording and the Markan wording in
            > the overlap passages, my immediate reaction is that the double tradition
            > wording does often seem to be more primitive than the wording in
            > parallel to Mark. But I am open to be convinced otherwise.
            >
            > A problem for Fleddermann, of course, is that there are double doublets
            > not just in Matthew and Luke, but also in Matthew and Mark, and in Mark
            > and Luke. How would he interpret those, I wonder. And why should the
            > same pattern occur in all three pairs of synoptic gospels?

            And don't forget Thomas where the overlaps with other synoptic
            materials are everywhere.

            In working up a thesis on how it is that Mark used Thomas it
            became obvious that Mark does frequently and radically redact
            his sources. Indeed one can conclude this from
            Neirynck, F. 1988. Duality in Mark : Contributions to the Study of
            the Markan Redaction. Leuven: Leuven University Press
            which is a VERY significant contribution to Synoptic-L type study.

            Mark Goodacre wrote recently:
            "Furthermore, I do not think that oral traditions die the moment that some of
            them are crystallised in texts. Thus it is likely that Matthew has interacted
            with Mark itself in the light of oral traditions."

            So one would be prone to think that Mt and Lk knew that Mark had
            redacted traditions, some of which were otherwise available to Mt and
            Lk, and sometimes Mt and/or Lk preferred the unredacted versions and
            "unredacted" Mark versions and/or added oral tradition versions.

            Steve
          • Mark Goodacre
            ... This is pretty much what Michael Goulder claims. Luke s doublets are cases where Luke takes one piece from Mark and another from (non-Markan) Matthew.
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 2, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Steve Davies wrote (on triple tradition / double tradition doublets):

              > >I don't see why, on the Farrer/Goodacre thesis this wouldn't just
              > >show that Matthew found those sayings particularly useful and used
              > >them twice (followed by Luke).

              This is pretty much what Michael Goulder claims. Luke's doublets are cases
              where Luke takes one piece from Mark and another from (non-Markan) Matthew.
              Matthew creates doublets by using the same Markan matter twice. My feeling
              would be that Matthean creativity may not take us all of the way -- it is quite
              likely that Matthew used non-Markan and Markan-influenced material from oral
              tradition.

              Brian Wilson responded to Steve's comment above:

              > Interesting! I think Fleddermann would want to come back at you,
              > however. He writes (Mk+Q, page 213) -
              >
              > "The differences between Mark and Q in the overlap texts stem from
              > Marcan redaction. Everywhere in the overlap texts we have seen that
              > starting from the Q text we can explain the Marcan text using the
              > redactional techniques of Mark."

              It needs to be said, however, that not all the material usually
              designated Mark-Q overlap is consituted by doublets. Indeed the
              classic Mark-Q overlap passages are not doublets -- John the Baptist's
              Preaching, Baptism, Temptation, Beelzebub, Mustard Seed (the exception being
              the Mission Discourse which is a Lucan doublet). These are passages that
              become Mark-Q overlap, rather, by virtue of the substantial agreement between
              Matthew and Luke against Mark, agreement so substantial that independent
              editing of Mark will not do as an explanation.
              >
              > In other words, in all fifty or sixty verses of "Mark-Q overlap"
              > material, the Markan version of the wording is apparently always less
              > primitive than the double tradition version. According to Fleddermann,
              > it would seem, on the Farrer hypothesis, that Matthew and/or Luke
              > managed to produce fifty or sixty verses of more primitive double
              > tradition material by editing Mark's wording.

              Even if it were the case that the "Q" wording were demonstrably more
              "primitive", this would only support the notion that Matthew interacted with
              Mark in the light of oral traditions, something that is both reasonable
              and likely. I am not convinced, however, by the notion that the "Q" parts of
              Mark-Q overlap passages are demonstrably more primitive than the Mark parts.
              It is commonly held by Q theorists, for example, that the "Q" version of the
              Mustard Seed is less primitive than the Markan version, and Thomas (which is
              closer to Mark here) may witness to this.

              But let us not be under any illusions. The reason for invoking the category
              "Mark/Q overlap" is to help explaining some major, striking agreements between
              Matthew and Luke against Mark, agreements that contradict the assertion that
              Matthew and Luke "practically never agree together against Mark" (e.g.
              Streeter, _Four Gospels_, p. 162).

              > A problem for Fleddermann, of course, is that there are double doublets
              > not just in Matthew and Luke, but also in Matthew and Mark, and in Mark
              > and Luke. How would he interpret those, I wonder. And why should the
              > same pattern occur in all three pairs of synoptic gospels?

              Because of two notebooks, perhaps? : )

              Mark
              --------------------------------------
              Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
              Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

              Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
              --------------------------------------

              Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
              Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Steve Davies wrote (SNIP) ... I think Neirynck says that he presents his book as a useful tool for anyone who cares to use it in the study of the synoptic
              Message 6 of 6 , Oct 3, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                Steve Davies wrote (SNIP)
                >it became obvious that Mark does frequently and radically redact his
                >sources. Indeed one can conclude this from Neirynck, F. 1988. Duality
                >in Mark : Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction. Leuven:
                >Leuven University Press which is a VERY significant contribution to
                >Synoptic-L type study.
                >
                I think Neirynck says that he presents his book as a useful tool for
                anyone who cares to use it in the study of the synoptic gospels. He
                leaves open the possibility that the duality observed in Mark is not
                Mark redacting his source material, but the style of the writer of
                Mark's source material. He does not a priori rule out a Proto-Mark
                hypothesis, for instance.

                In "Duality in Mark" Neirynck lists 30 categories of repetition
                ("duality") in Mark, with hundreds of references, and then follows these
                with the text of Mark brilliantly arranged to indicate masses of
                repetitions of all sorts in Mark. On my count, there are over two
                thousand words of Mark scored as examples of duality. It is like a
                firework display, and well worth seeing (Part III, pages 139-191).

                A few months ago, I examined three passages in the double tradition,
                where Matthew and Luke agree very closely in wording, to see whether the
                duality that Neirynck observes in Mark is also present in what Neirynck
                considers to be "Q" material. I looked for examples of some of
                Neirynck's Markan-duality categories (the categories I thought were
                least subjective) in the Mt//Lk material, and compared their frequencies
                with the frequencies in Mark. One would suppose on the 2DH, and on the
                Farrer Hypothesis, that the style of Mark would be significantly
                different from the style of this double tradition material. In fact I
                found that the same duality which Neirynck observes in Mark is also
                present to much the same extent in these double tradition passages, as
                far as my test went.

                It would be fascinating to hear what Neirynck has to say about this. If
                the duality in Mark is also found equally in the double tradition, it
                would seem that either the 2DH and the Farrer Hypothesis have a
                problem, or that Neirynck's categories of duality in Mark are not
                terribly significant for source-critical purposes. (To be fair to him,
                Neirynck, of course, would say that his book is intended for use in
                redaction criticism rather than source criticism.)

                Does anyone know of anything written on Neirynck's categories of
                "duality" occurring not only in Mark but also in Matthew and/or Luke,
                please? I would very much like to hear if you have any information on
                this.

                Best wishes,
                BRIAN WILSON

                E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.