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

Re: Q yes or no?

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 15 , Mar 1, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim Deardorff wrote:
      >
      > 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
      >
      > Paul,

      > 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
      non-Markan
      narratives. I run into real problems from a source critical basis.
      What I
      see is Luke using a Q that is not Matthew's Q. Matthew seems, to me, to
      bump
      along with a translational Greek Q since Matthew does not convince me
      that
      he was competent in the Semitic source...in this case, Aramaic. Luke,
      on
      the other hand, convinces me he was competent in the Aramaic idiom,
      taking
      the effort with the <Aram>xwbyn idiom in the LP to "explain" that it did
      not mean "debt" but "sin." Luke does this again in !4:8 with
      <Aram>m$twt).
      I cannot help but conclude that Luke uses an Aramaic source as
      opposed to Matthew's Greek source, hence Luke's "Q" is an earlier
      linguistic
      rescension. Since Luke has a better handle on the semitic idiom and
      does
      not uses Matthew's non-Markan sequential order, my inclination is to
      place
      Luke around 80ish CE and Matthew around 85ish CE.

      Since I have been occupied with other matters, I have missed
      some of the latest discourses on this issue both here and in Crosstalk
      so I will also copy this "over yonder" for comment. I am sure I will
      hear from my buddy Antonio on this (g).

      Jack



      --
      D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
      Jack Kilmon (jpman@...)


      http://scriptorium.accesscomm.net
    • Jim Deardorff
      ... Paul, 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
      Message 2 of 15 , Mar 1, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        At 11:08 AM 3/1/98 -0600, Jack Kilmon wrote:
        >Jim Deardorff wrote:
        >>
        >> 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

        >> Paul,
        >>
        >> 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
        >non-Markan narratives.

        Paul,

        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.
        >What I
        >see is Luke using a Q that is not Matthew's Q. Matthew seems, to me, to
        >bump
        >along with a translational Greek Q since Matthew does not convince me
        >that
        >he was competent in the Semitic source...in this case, Aramaic. [...]

        Yet, many others find that Matthew must have been written in the Hebrew
        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.

        Jim Deardorff
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Paul Miller wrote - ... J. S. Kloppenborg has written of the viability of the Two Document Hypothesis, upon which the very existence of Q is predicated ( Q
        Message 3 of 15 , Mar 7, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          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?

          J. S. Kloppenborg has written of "the viability of the Two Document
          Hypothesis, upon which the very existence of Q is predicated" ("Q
          Parallels", page xxi.). I understand this to mean that Q is defined as
          that hypothetical documentary source which is presupposed by the Two
          Document Hypothesis, so that if the Two Document Hypothesis is ruled
          out, Q did not exist.

          Taking this as a starting point, I would suggest we can decide whether Q
          existed by (1) defining the Two Document Hypothesis, and (2) considering
          whether the observable patterns of similarities and differences of
          wording and order of material in the synoptic gospels are compatible
          with the Two Document Hypothesis so defined.

          I define the Two Document Hypothesis in the following propositions -
          (a) Matthew and Luke each copied from a documentary source Q
          (b) Matthew and Luke each copied from Mark
          (c) Mark did not copy from Q
          (d) Q did not copy from Mark
          (e) no other hypothetical document is posited.

          The hundreds of minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the
          triple tradition taken together are incompatible with the Two Document
          Hypothesis as defined above. In Streeter's words, "These agremeents are
          all of a kind which, if there were fewer of them, could easily be
          attributed to accidental coincidence. But there are just too many of
          them to make this at all a plausible explanation." Any one of the minor
          agreements by itself could be attributed to accidental coincidence, but
          all of them together cannot. The minor agreements together are not
          compatible with the Two Document Hypothesis as defined above.

          Similarly, the so-called "Mark-Q Overlaps" are not compatible with the
          Two Document Hypothesis as we have defined it. As H. T. Fleddermann has
          shown, over 50 verses of Mark are very significantly similar in wording
          to material which is common to Matthew and Luke, but which also has
          significant agreements in wording against Mark. The two types of
          similarities (Matthew and Luke against Mark, and Matthew and Luke with
          Mark) are so strong that, as Fleddermann shows, documentary dependence
          is required to explain them. Either Mark copied from Q, or both Mark
          and Q copied from an earlier documentary source. But, according to our
          definition of the Two Document Hypothesis above, Mark did not copy from
          Q, and no other documentary source is posited. The observed "Mark-Q
          Overlaps" are therefore incompatible with the Two Document Hypothesis as
          defined.

          On two counts, therefore, the Two Document Hypothesis as defined above
          is ruled out. The conclusion to be drawn is that therefore Q as defined
          above did not exist.

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON
        • james r. covey
          ... here is a humble suggestion for an alternative course of action... if you re itching for an Internet-level discussion of this question, i think you should
          Message 4 of 15 , Mar 7, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            re missive of 28/02/98 01:51 PM under pseudonym -Paul Miller- :

            >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?

            here is a humble suggestion for an alternative course of action...

            if you're itching for an Internet-level discussion of this question,
            i think you should go to Steve Davies' Gospel of Thomas homepage,
            http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html, and scroll down to
            "The Synoptic Sayings Source Q: A Debate." go through all the links
            that you find interesting. if that does not completely tire you of
            the subject, there's probably something deeply wrong with you.

            :-)

            james

            -------------------------
            James R. Covey
            WWW Systems Developer
            Cochran Interactive Inc.
            http://www.cochran.com
            direct ph. # 902.422.8915
            office fax # 902.425.8659
            jrcovey@...
          • Mike Grondin
            Brian - if you don t mind the interjection of a boring logician, I d ... What you need for your argument, of course, is to first establish the truth of If
            Message 5 of 15 , Mar 7, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Brian - if you don't mind the interjection of a boring logician, I'd
              like to respond to the following passages:

              > J. S. Kloppenborg has written of "the viability of the Two Document
              > Hypothesis, upon which the very existence of Q is predicated" ("Q
              > Parallels", page xxi.). I understand this to mean that Q is defined as
              > that hypothetical documentary source which is presupposed by the Two
              > Document Hypothesis, so that if the Two Document Hypothesis is ruled
              > out, Q did not exist.
              >
              > Taking this as a starting point, I would suggest we can decide whether Q
              > existed by (1) defining the Two Document Hypothesis, and (2) considering
              > whether the observable patterns of similarities and differences of
              > wording and order of material in the synoptic gospels are compatible
              > with the Two Document Hypothesis so defined.

              What you need for your argument, of course, is to first establish the
              truth of 'If not-2D, then not-Q'. To say as you do, however, that 2D
              'presupposes' Q is simply to say that 'If 2D, then Q', which is quite
              different from, and does not entail, 'If not-2D, then not-Q'.

              Nevertheless, the way Kloppenborg puts it _does_ seem to entail 'If
              not-2D, then not-Q'. So we must see if what he says is right. Certainly
              many 2D-theorists have seemed to argue that way, but there really isn't
              any logically-necessary connection between 2D and Q. What would be
              needed to establish that connection would be to prove that 'If Q, then
              2D' (which is logically equivalent to 'If not-2D, then not-Q'). In other
              words, we would have to show that if Q existed, then 2D is the correct
              theory about the formation of the Gospels. I think you'll agree there is
              little chance of _that_ being true. Hence your argument against 2D, as
              nice as it is, doesn't prove the non-existence of Q.

              Best wishes,
              Mike Grondin
            • John S. Kloppenborg
              ... Not presupposed, but logically entailed. Given (a) Markan priority to Matthew and Luke, and (b) the non-dependence of Matt on Luke and Luke on Matt, one is
              Message 6 of 15 , Mar 7, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                > J. S. Kloppenborg has written of "the viability of the Two Document
                > Hypothesis, upon which the very existence of Q is predicated" ("Q
                > Parallels", page xxi.). I understand this to mean that Q is defined as
                > that hypothetical documentary source which is presupposed by the Two
                > Document Hypothesis,


                Not presupposed, but logically entailed. Given (a) Markan priority to
                Matthew and Luke, and (b) the non-dependence of Matt on Luke and Luke on
                Matt, one is required to posit a source upon which Matt and Luke depend
                for their nonMarkan material.

                > so that if the Two Document Hypothesis is ruled
                > out, Q did not exist.

                Tautologous! Since the ``Two Documents'' of the 2dH are Mark and Q, it
                follows that if not 2DH (Mark, Q), then not Mark, Q!

                >
                > Taking this as a starting point, I would suggest we can decide whether Q
                > existed by (1) defining the Two Document Hypothesis, and (2) considering
                > whether the observable patterns of similarities and differences of
                > wording and order of material in the synoptic gospels are compatible
                > with the Two Document Hypothesis so defined.
                >
                > I define the Two Document Hypothesis in the following propositions -
                > (a) Matthew and Luke each copied from a documentary source Q
                > (b) Matthew and Luke each copied from Mark
                no, you also need to argue xMatt -> Luke and xLuke -> Matt.


                > (c) Mark did not copy from Q
                not necessarily entailed in 2DH.
                > (d) Q did not copy from Mark
                not necessarily entailed in 2DH
                > (e) no other hypothetical document is posited.
                >
                > The hundreds of minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the
                > triple tradition taken together are incompatible with the Two Document
                > Hypothesis as defined above. In Streeter's words, "These agremeents are
                > all of a kind which, if there were fewer of them, could easily be
                > attributed to accidental coincidence. But there are just too many of
                > them to make this at all a plausible explanation." Any one of the minor
                > agreements by itself could be attributed to accidental coincidence, but
                > all of them together cannot. The minor agreements together are not
                > compatible with the Two Document Hypothesis as defined above.

                Have you read (a) Neirynck, THE MINOR AGREEMENTS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE
                AGAINST MARK (BETL 37; Leuven 1974) or (b) Andreas Ennulat, DIE "MINOR
                AGREEMENTS": UNTERSUCHUNGEN ZU EINER OFFENEN FRAGE DES SYNOPTISCHEN
                PROBLEMS (WUNT 2/63; Tuebingen 1994)? I think you need a bit more nuance
                in your statement.
                >
                > Similarly, the so-called "Mark-Q Overlaps" are not compatible with the
                > Two Document Hypothesis as we have defined it. As H. T. Fleddermann has
                > shown, over 50 verses of Mark are very significantly similar in wording
                > to material which is common to Matthew and Luke, but which also has
                > significant agreements in wording against Mark. The two types of
                > similarities (Matthew and Luke against Mark, and Matthew and Luke with
                > Mark) are so strong that, as Fleddermann shows, documentary dependence
                > is required to explain them. Either Mark copied from Q, or both Mark
                > and Q copied from an earlier documentary source. But, according to our
                > definition of the Two Document Hypothesis above, Mark did not copy from
                > Q, and no other documentary source is posited. The observed "Mark-Q
                > Overlaps" are therefore incompatible with the Two Document Hypothesis as
                > defined.

                Moot. Since you have defined the 2DH to include the non-dependence of Mark
                on Q and vice versa, the finding (dato non concesso) that Mark depends on
                Q violates *your* definition. But the argument is purely stipulative and
                therefore noncompelling. But read Neirynck's Epilogue to Fleddermann!



                %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
                J.S. Kloppenborg %% Snail-mail
                Internet: %% Faculty of Theology
                kloppen@... %% University of St. Michael's College
                Phone: %% 81 St. Mary Street
                416/926-7140 (m) %% Toronto, Ontario M5S 1J4
                416/926-7294 (FAX) %% CANADA
                416/926-7267 (direct) %%
              • Mike Grondin
                Another minor quibble - ... Not exactly. If not-2DH, then all we know is that either not-Mark or not-Q (or both). Only by assuming (or arguing) that Matt-Lukan
                Message 7 of 15 , Mar 7, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  Another minor quibble -

                  Wilson says:
                  > > ... if the Two Document Hypothesis is ruled out, Q did not exist.

                  Kloppenborg replies:
                  > Tautologous! Since the ``Two Documents'' of the 2dH are Mark and Q, it
                  > follows that if not 2DH (Mark, Q), then not Mark, Q!

                  Not exactly. If not-2DH, then all we know is that either not-Mark or
                  not-Q (or both). Only by assuming (or arguing) that Matt-Lukan
                  dependence on Mark (not merely the "priority" of Mark) must be true, can
                  we conclude that not-Q.

                  Highest regards,
                  Mike Grondin
                • Jim Deardorff
                  ... May I interject here that, if logic is being used, we should ask more of the 2D. It is not sufficient just to posit Mark (and perhaps Q) as a source and
                  Message 8 of 15 , Mar 7, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 11:26 PM 3/7/98 -0500, John S. Kloppenborg wrote:
                    >On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                    >
                    >> J. S. Kloppenborg has written of "the viability of the Two Document
                    >> Hypothesis, upon which the very existence of Q is predicated" ("Q
                    >> Parallels", page xxi.). I understand this to mean that Q is defined as
                    >> that hypothetical documentary source which is presupposed by the Two
                    >> Document Hypothesis,

                    >Not presupposed, but logically entailed. Given (a) Markan priority to
                    >Matthew and Luke, and (b) the non-dependence of Matt on Luke and Luke on
                    >Matt, one is required to posit a source upon which Matt and Luke depend
                    >for their nonMarkan material. [...]

                    May I interject here that, if logic is being used, we should ask more of the
                    2D. It is not sufficient just to posit Mark (and perhaps Q) as a source and
                    not query any further. Since neither John Mark nor any other Mr. Mark was
                    one of the apostles, the writer of Mark was not himself one of the witnesses
                    to the Gospel events written from the viewpoint of a witness. So it's
                    obvious that the writer of Mark used some source. It is therefore fair
                    game, and only logical, to ask that the 2D postulate just what that source
                    was, too.

                    The reason this needs to be mentioned is that with the Augustinian
                    hypothesis (AH) or some version of it, there *is* a source for Matthew (or
                    for much of Matthew), that being the Logia known to Papias. This source is
                    not postulated but is part of the available external evidence, though the
                    latter is disappointingly brief and terse.

                    So in comparison with the AH, which does not even have to postulate any
                    document like Q that's unsupported by external evidence, the 2D is
                    a giant step worse off.

                    Jim Deardorff
                  • Yuri Kuchinsky
                    Dear Brian, Yes, the question of the Minor Agreements is a one that needs to be looked at more carefully than is usually done. These MAs of Lk and Mt against
                    Message 9 of 15 , Mar 8, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Brian,

                      Yes, the question of the "Minor Agreements" is a one that needs to be looked at more carefully than is usually done. These MAs of Lk and Mt against Mk may indicate the following:

                      1. As Griesbachians would have it, Mk was written after Mt and Lk.

                      2. As the mainstream 2DH supporters would have it, scribal harmonizations is one possible explanation. But the sheer quantity of MAs would seem difficult to account for on the 2DH as it is usually formulated.

                      3. FGM (Farrer-Goulder Model) people would take the MAs to indicate that Lk used Mt.

                      So these are the positions normally taken to explain these MAs. My own view is that all three positions are rather inadequate in and of themselves. So what is the answer? I say it is the proto-Mark (pMk) hypothesis. (Generally, I accept the priority of Mk.)

                      The pMk hypothesis would have it that the version of Mk that the writers of Mt and of Lk used was different from our canonical Mk. Therefore, the MAs would indicate the places where the wording of Mk was changed by subsequent editors of Mk.

                      The pMk hypothesis is being advocated currently by Helmut Koester. (Cf. his ANCIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS: their history and development, London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990.)

                      Also, I would recommend the long article on the subject by Koester in COLLOQUY ON NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES, Bruce Corley, ed, Mercer UP, Macon, 1983.

                      This pMk hypothesis has also been advocated some time ago by Alfred Loisy (e.g. his Origines du Nouveau Testament. /English: The origins of the New Testament / translated by L.P. Jacks, New York : Collier Books, 1962.)

                      Loisy's theories in this area have been all but forgotten by now. I'm not sure if Koester is using Loisy's work in his research, as I've not seen any references to Loisy in his work so far.

                      Nevertheless, Loisy's contribution in this area is very considerable. I'm not sure about the finer details of Koester's and Loisy's respective proposals, but overall the two theories are quite compatible. It is even my impression that Loisy may have offered certain insights in this area than Koester can use profitably (if he hasn't already.)

                      So, to summarize, I think the three well known ways of dealing with the MAs as outlined above, while inadequate in themselves, may be _all_ correct to some extent. They all point to some real problems in NT interpretation. The pMk hypothesis, it seems, is one way to "harmonize" all three.

                      Best regards,

                      Yuri.

                      Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku

                      It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
                      to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
                    • Yuri Kuchinsky
                      Dear Brian, Yes, the question of the Minor Agreements is a one that needs to be looked at more carefully than is usually done. These MAs of Lk and Mt against
                      Message 10 of 15 , Mar 8, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Brian,

                        Yes, the question of the "Minor Agreements" is a one that needs to be looked at more carefully than is usually done. These MAs of Lk and Mt against Mk may indicate the following:

                        1. As Griesbachians would have it, Mk was written after Mt and Lk.

                        2. As the mainstream 2DH supporters would have it, scribal harmonizations is one possible explanation. But the sheer quantity of MAs would seem difficult to account for on the 2DH as it is usually formulated.

                        3. FGM (Farrer-Goulder Model) people would take the MAs to indicate that Lk used Mt.

                        So these are the positions normally taken to explain these MAs. My own view is that all three positions are rather inadequate in and of themselves. So what is the answer? I say it is the proto-Mark (pMk) hypothesis. (Generally, I accept the priority of Mk.)

                        The pMk hypothesis would have it that the version of Mk that the writers of Mt and of Lk used was different from our canonical Mk. Therefore, the MAs would indicate the places where the wording of Mk was changed by subsequent editors of Mk.

                        The pMk hypothesis is being advocated currently by Helmut Koester. (Cf. his ANCIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS: their history and development, London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990.)

                        Also, I would recommend the long article on the subject by Koester in COLLOQUY ON NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES, Bruce Corley, ed, Mercer UP, Macon, 1983.

                        This pMk hypothesis has also been advocated some time ago by Alfred Loisy (e.g. his Origines du Nouveau Testament. /English: The origins of the New Testament / translated by L.P. Jacks, New York : Collier Books, 1962.)

                        Loisy's theories in this area have been all but forgotten by now. I'm not sure if Koester is using Loisy's work in his research, as I've not seen any references to Loisy in his work so far.

                        Nevertheless, Loisy's contribution in this area is very considerable. I'm not sure about the finer details of Koester's and Loisy's respective proposals, but overall the two theories are quite compatible. It is even my impression that Loisy may have offered certain insights in this area than Koester can use profitably (if he hasn't already.)

                        So, to summarize, I think the three well known ways of dealing with the MAs as outlined above, while inadequate in themselves, may be _all_ correct to some extent. They all point to some real problems in NT interpretation. The pMk hypothesis, it seems, is one way to "harmonize" all three.

                        Best regards,

                        Yuri.

                        Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku

                        It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
                        to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
                      • Brian E. Wilson
                        J. S. Kloppenborg wrote (SNIP) - ... Is it not the case that all the agreements of wording of Matthew and Luke against Mark are non-Markan material? Do not
                        Message 11 of 15 , Mar 9, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          J. S. Kloppenborg wrote (SNIP) -
                          > Given (a) Markan priority to Matthew and Luke, and (b) the non-
                          >dependence of Matt on Luke and Luke on Matt, one is required to posit a
                          >source upon which Matt and Luke depend for their nonMarkan material.

                          Is it not the case that all the agreements of wording of Matthew and
                          Luke against Mark are non-Markan material? Do not these include the
                          minor agreements which occur throughout the triple tradition? And do
                          they not also include the stronger agreements of Matthew and Luke
                          against Mark in those pieces of triple tradition material which
                          advocates of the 2DH regard as "Mark-Q Overlaps" - for instance the
                          Parable of the Mustard Seed in Mt 13:31-32, Mk 4:30-32, Lk 13:18-19 ?

                          It would seem to me that if so, to posit a source upon which Matthew and
                          Luke depend for all their non-Markan material one would therefore have
                          to posit a source which included much material found in the triple
                          tradition.

                          In other words, would not the source one would be required to posit
                          have to contain a lot of material very similar (though not identical) in
                          wording to much material in Mark, some of this including the hundreds
                          of words of the minor agreements, and some including the agreements in
                          wording of Matthew and Luke against Mark found in some of the material
                          known as "Mark-Q Overlaps"?

                          In which case, would one be positing 'Q' ? And if not, why not, please?

                          Best wishes
                          BRIAN WILSON
                        • John S. Kloppenborg
                          ... I d think, yes, to the first and third question, maybe to the second. As you know, the minor agreements in the triple tradition are a diverse set of data,
                          Message 12 of 15 , Mar 9, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                            > Is it not the case that all the agreements of wording of Matthew and
                            > Luke against Mark are non-Markan material? Do not these include the
                            > minor agreements which occur throughout the triple tradition? And do
                            > they not also include the stronger agreements of Matthew and Luke
                            > against Mark in those pieces of triple tradition material which
                            > advocates of the 2DH regard as "Mark-Q Overlaps" - for instance the
                            > Parable of the Mustard Seed in Mt 13:31-32, Mk 4:30-32, Lk 13:18-19 ?

                            I'd think, yes, to the first and third question, maybe to the second. As
                            you know, the minor agreements in the triple tradition are a diverse set
                            of data, susceptible to various explanations (a nonMarkan source being
                            only one of them).

                            >
                            > It would seem to me that if so, to posit a source upon which Matthew and
                            > Luke depend for all their non-Markan material one would therefore have
                            > to posit a source which included much material found in the triple
                            > tradition.

                            `Much' is rather of an overstatement, I should think. It is hardly
                            necessary or even plausible to posit a source for e.g., the minor
                            agreements in the raising of Jairus' daughter; some have posited a Q
                            baptismal pericope to account for the MAs in that section (I not among
                            them), but probably necessary in the case of the Mustard Seed, *not*
                            simply because of the MA in Luke 13:18-19par, but because of the `major
                            agreements' of Matt 13:33 / Luke 13:20-21 (Parable of the Leaven), and the
                            sequential agreement, notwithstanding the fact that Matt and Luke locate
                            the Mustard seed / leaven in different *markan* contexts. However, such
                            double agreements as Luke 19:12-27 and 14:16-24 have always been open to a
                            countersuggestion that these do not derive from a common source, but are
                            two quite independent versions of a parable.
                            What I am hinting at is that it is not very productive to consider he
                            SynProb in abstract; if we want to get anywhere, we have to look at texts
                            and in detail.


                            >
                            > In other words, would not the source one would be required to posit
                            > have to contain a lot of material very similar (though not identical) in
                            > wording to much material in Mark, some of this including the hundreds
                            > of words of the minor agreements, and some including the agreements in
                            > wording of Matthew and Luke against Mark found in some of the material
                            > known as "Mark-Q Overlaps"?

                            >
                            > In which case, would one be positing 'Q' ? And if not, why not, please?

                            Not a Q that anyone has posited (to my knowledge), although Bernard Weiss
                            once proposed a rather massively expanded `Matthaeusquelle' including
                            Markan material. That's no reason not to posit such a source, but I don't
                            think that it would be a significant improvement on current forms of the
                            2DH that get by with Mark, Q, various mechanisms to account for some of
                            the MAs, and due allowance for the imponderables of history.

                            >
                            > Best wishes
                            > BRIAN WILSON
                            >
                            best

                            %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
                            J.S. Kloppenborg %% Snail-mail
                            Internet: %% Faculty of Theology
                            kloppen@... %% University of St. Michael's College
                            Phone: %% 81 St. Mary Street
                            416/926-7140 (m) %% Toronto, Ontario M5S 1J4
                            416/926-7294 (FAX) %% CANADA
                            416/926-7267 (direct) %%
                          • Stephen C. Carlson
                            ... Others have already addressed points (c) and (d). I would like to address point (e). I prefer to formulate (e) as no other hypothetical document is
                            Message 13 of 15 , Mar 9, 1998
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 07:09 3/7/98 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                              >I define the Two Document Hypothesis in the following propositions -
                              >(a) Matthew and Luke each copied from a documentary source Q
                              >(b) Matthew and Luke each copied from Mark
                              >(c) Mark did not copy from Q
                              >(d) Q did not copy from Mark
                              >(e) no other hypothetical document is posited.

                              Others have already addressed points (c) and (d). I would like to address
                              point (e). I prefer to formulate (e) as "no other hypothetical document is
                              posited to explain the literary relationship between any of the Synoptics."
                              Thus, this formulation excludes such hypothetical sources as Ur-Markus or
                              proto-Mark (source of Mt,Mk,Lk), deutero-Mark (recension of Mark used by Mt
                              and Lk), and Pierson Parker's K (=Mark+M, source to Mark and Mt), while
                              allowing such sources for a single document as pre-Markan catenae, M, L,
                              and Q1.

                              I submit that there are analytically two kinds of hypothetical documents:
                              (1) those used to explain the literary relationship between two documents, and
                              (2) those used to explain some feature of a single document.

                              Only the first kind of hypothetical document should be subject to Occam's
                              Razor in deciding between competing synoptic source theories. See also,
                              the discussion of the nonMatthean source for Luke in MacNicol et al., BEYOND
                              THE Q IMPASSE -- LUKE'S USE OF MATTHEW: 25-28.

                              Stephen Carlson
                              --
                              Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
                              scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
                              http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.