[Synoptic-L] The Q Position
- Ron Price wrote -
>The fact that there is not a single extant copy of Q means that we
>cannot be sure of exactly what it contained.
Could we even be sure of approximately what it contained?
In particular, if Mt and Lk both used Q, it is surely extremely unlikely
that they both used exactly the same parts of Q. We know that they did
not use exactly the same parts of Mark. It is very probable therefore,
that if Mt and Lk both used Q, each copied some passages from Q which
the other omitted. So some Q is hidden in special Matthew, and more Q is
lurking somewhere in special Luke. Q is very likely, therefore, to have
been significantly longer than the set of sayings common to Mt and Lk
but absent from Mark.
Also, if Mt and Lk used Q, then Q and Mark must have overlapped. The
Parable of the Mustard Seed occurs once in each synoptic gospel but, on
the "Q Hypothesis" this passage must have occurred in Q as well as in
Mark, otherwise the significant agreements of wording of Mt and Lk
against Mk in the Mustard Seed could not be explained. On the "Q
Hypothesis" Q must have contained triple tradition material, therefore,
and not just double tradition. But how much triple tradition material?
Why should not the Parable of the Sower, and its Interpretation, and the
Lawyer's Question, and the Baptism of Jesus, and the Paralysed Man, and
the Five Thousand, and so on, also have been in Q?
So parts of Q could be preserved not only in the double tradition but
also in special Matthew, special Luke and in material in Mark, and Q
could have been as long as, or even longer than, the Gospel of Mark.
Assuming it existed, can we be sure we can recognize enough of Q to make
meaningful generalizations about it?
E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE
SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
- I wrote:
<< The fact that there is not a single extant copy of Q means that we
cannot be sure of exactly what it contained. >>
Brian Wilson replied:
<< Ron, could we even be sure of approximately what it contained? >> ,
because Matthew and Luke may each have chosen to omit some material from
Q, and also because Mark may have derived some of his triple tradition
material from (oral tradition corresponding to) Q.
I agree that we can't be **sure**. My main criterion for borderline
cases would be to exclude anything other than sayings which require
little or no context to allow them to convey a meaningful message. (This
excludes both stories, and fragments such as TIS ESTIN hO PAISAS SE.)
But clearly advocates of the Two Source hypothesis don't use this
criterion, for their 'Q' already contains narratives.
Anyway it's the Q theorists who are constructing the biggest building
on this foundation. So I think Brian's question requires an answer from
a supporter of the views of Kloppenborg et al..
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK