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

Q 1:31 and 22:64?

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Peterson
    The following attempt to think through an aspect of the 2ST originated on CrossTalk, but it may be of greater interest here; certainly I am interested to have
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 6, 1998
      The following attempt to think through an aspect of the 2ST originated on
      CrossTalk, but it may be of greater interest here; certainly I am
      interested to have my logic checked by students of the Synoptic problem.
      The proposal is that if (strictly for purposes of the argument) it is
      granted that non-Marcan matter shared by Matthew and Luke derives from Q
      (justifiably conceived as a written source at least where the Double
      Tradition exhibits verbal agreement), it follows that this hypothetical
      source included a narrative of Jesus' birth and his passion, as in both of
      these sections of the Synoptic narrative we find non-Marcan clauses which
      Matthew and Luke share.

      The Q birth narrative comes clearly into view at Luke 1:31//Matt 1:21,
      which exhibit a verbally identical string of 6 words (. . . hUION KAI
      KALESEIS TO ONOMA AUTOU IHSOUN) -- 8 counting the nearly identical KAI
      TEXH(I)//TEXETAI DE that introduces the string (differing in person because
      Matthew's angel addresses Joseph and Luke's Mary). For a passion narrative
      in Q, the strongest evidence is the famous MA Luke 22:64//Matt 26:69 (TIS
      ESTIN hO PAISAS SE).

      Anywhere between the infancy and the passion, such agreements are routinely
      attributed to Q on the 2ST. But no reconstruction that I'm aware of
      attributes "you/she shall bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus" or
      "who is the one who struck you" to Q (IQP begins with the hypothetical
      incipit Q 3:0 and then in earnest with a mention of John in Q 3:2b, and
      ends with the Twelve Thrones in Q 22:28, 30).

      The absence of Q 1:31 and 22:64 from the standard reconstructions suggests
      that there are two inconsistent definitions of Q current. Q is typically
      defined as both (1) the source of non-Marcan matter common to Matthew and
      Luke; and (2) a document exhibiting recounting only aspects of Jesus'
      active ministry (mainly teaching, a couple of miracles, with an
      introduction involving John the Baptist). The first (I suggest) should be
      the governing definition among proponents of the 2ST, as non-Marcan matter
      that Matthew and Luke share is the only surviving indication of a lost
      document's existence, on the hypothesis of Marcan priority; the character
      of Q should be inferred from the extent of such shared material.

      I realize that what I'm asking us to do is put our own synoptic theories on
      hold and think through the logic of what remains the majority hypothesis; I
      will be grateful for any help in assessing the validity of this attempt to
      do so.

      Jeff Peterson
      Institute for Christian Studies
      Austin, Texas, USA
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Jeff Peterson wrote (SNIP)- ... Jeff, Definition (1) above makes no reference to the triple tradition material which is included in Q by advocates of the Two
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 7, 1998
        Jeff Peterson wrote (SNIP)-
        >The absence of Q 1:31 and 22:64 from the standard reconstructions
        >suggests that there are two inconsistent definitions of Q current. Q is
        >typically defined as both (1) the source of non-Marcan matter common to
        >Matthew and Luke; and (2) a document exhibiting recounting only aspects
        >of Jesus' active ministry (mainly teaching, a couple of miracles, with
        >an introduction involving John the Baptist).
        >
        Jeff,
        Definition (1) above makes no reference to the triple tradition
        material which is included in "Q" by advocates of the Two Document
        Hypothesis. For instance, the Parable of the Mustard Seed occurs once in
        each synoptic gospel - Mt 13.31-32, Mk 4.30-32, Lk 13.18-19. So also
        does the Parable of the Divided House - Mk 12.25-26, Mk 3.23-26, Lk
        11.17-18, and also the Messenger - Mt 11.10, Mk 1.2, Lk 7.27.

        Such pieces of material as these are not absent from Mark, and yet
        advocates of the Two Document Hypothesis are forced to include them in
        "Q" because they contain strong agreements in wording of Matthew and
        Luke against Mark which the Two Document Hypothesis could not otherwise
        explain.

        For this reason, I think you will find that Definition (1) above is not
        acceptable to exponents of the 2DH. On the 2DH, "Q" ,must have been more
        than the double tradition.

        In theory, any satisfactory definition of "Q" should include all
        material which, on the 2DH, must have come from "Q". In practice, it
        appears that no such definition has yet been found.

        Your references to Mt 1.25=Lk 1.31, and Mt 26.68=Lk 22.64, underline the
        absence of a satisfactory definition of "Q". They also raise the
        question of whether, on the 2DH, it is possible to define the Minor
        Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. Where do the Minor
        Agreements end, and the other agreements of Matthew and Luke against
        Mark begin? If, on the 2DH, we have no satisfactory definition of "Q",
        does it not follow that neither do we have a satisfactory definition of
        the Minor Agreements?

        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
      • Jim Deardorff
        ... This represents excellent reasoning. Just as compelling to me is the absence of any surviving scraps of Q AND absence of any mention of it in the early
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 7, 1998
          At 11:29 AM 9/7/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
          >Jeff Peterson wrote (SNIP)-
          >>The absence of Q 1:31 and 22:64 from the standard reconstructions
          >>suggests that there are two inconsistent definitions of Q current. Q is
          >>typically defined as both (1) the source of non-Marcan matter common to
          >>Matthew and Luke; and (2) a document exhibiting recounting only aspects
          >>of Jesus' active ministry (mainly teaching, a couple of miracles, with
          >>an introduction involving John the Baptist).

          >Jeff,
          > Definition (1) above makes no reference to the triple tradition
          >material which is included in "Q" by advocates of the Two Document
          >Hypothesis. For instance, the Parable of the Mustard Seed occurs once in
          >each synoptic gospel - Mt 13.31-32, Mk 4.30-32, Lk 13.18-19. So also
          >does the Parable of the Divided House - Mk 12.25-26, Mk 3.23-26, Lk
          >11.17-18, and also the Messenger - Mt 11.10, Mk 1.2, Lk 7.27.
          >
          >Such pieces of material as these are not absent from Mark, and yet
          >advocates of the Two Document Hypothesis are forced to include them in
          >"Q" because they contain strong agreements in wording of Matthew and
          >Luke against Mark which the Two Document Hypothesis could not otherwise
          >explain.
          >
          >For this reason, I think you will find that Definition (1) above is not
          >acceptable to exponents of the 2DH. On the 2DH, "Q" ,must have been more
          >than the double tradition.
          >
          >In theory, any satisfactory definition of "Q" should include all
          >material which, on the 2DH, must have come from "Q". In practice, it
          >appears that no such definition has yet been found.
          >
          >Your references to Mt 1.25=Lk 1.31, and Mt 26.68=Lk 22.64, underline the
          >absence of a satisfactory definition of "Q". They also raise the
          >question of whether, on the 2DH, it is possible to define the Minor
          >Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. Where do the Minor
          >Agreements end, and the other agreements of Matthew and Luke against
          >Mark begin? If, on the 2DH, we have no satisfactory definition of "Q",
          >does it not follow that neither do we have a satisfactory definition of
          >the Minor Agreements?

          This represents excellent reasoning.

          Just as compelling to me is the absence of any surviving scraps of "Q" AND
          absence of any mention of it in the early literature. Any trepidation over
          using the argument of silence here would be uncalled for, because "Q" would
          not have been heretical or unacceptable to the early church, judging from
          what we read in both Matthew and Luke. There would have been no reason
          whatsoever for "Q" to have been retired soon after having been utilized to
          form two gospels. Instead, it would have been transcribed and
          retranscribed, treated with care and have survived. And if "Q" were utilized
          in forming two different gospels, it would have been known to many early
          church fathers, who would have had no reason to keep silent about it. Surely
          Papias would have mentioned it (as a document utilized by AMt and ALk and
          written in Greek, not Hebrew/Aramaic).

          With MP (Matthean Priority), we do have a source that was mentioned for Mt,
          and excellent reasons why this source did not survive and why Papias'
          surviving remarks about it were so terse, as indicated in my web site, plus
          reasons why there had been a document in Rome with Peter and Mark that
          connects with the later Gospel of Mark.

          Other reasons exist indicating the great likelihood that Q was born out of
          the 19th- and early 20th-century theological commitment to treat the
          attributed authors of the Gospels with the same utmost respect with which
          the church treats the Gospels themselves.

          Jim Deardorff
          Corvallis, Oregon
          E-mail: deardorj@...
          Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
        • Jeff Peterson
          ... (SNIP) ... In the passages Brian mentions it is the non-Marcan bits common to Matthew and Luke that provide a warrant on the 2ST for including the passages
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 8, 1998
            At 11:29 AM 9/7/98, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
            >Jeff Peterson wrote (SNIP)-
            >>The absence of Q 1:31 and 22:64 from the standard reconstructions
            >>suggests that there are two inconsistent definitions of Q current. Q is
            >>typically defined as both (1) the source of non-Marcan matter common to
            >>Matthew and Luke; and (2) a document exhibiting recounting only aspects
            >>of Jesus' active ministry (mainly teaching, a couple of miracles, with
            >>an introduction involving John the Baptist).
            >>
            >Jeff,
            > Definition (1) above makes no reference to the triple tradition
            >material which is included in "Q" by advocates of the Two Document
            >Hypothesis. For instance, the Parable of the Mustard Seed occurs once in
            >each synoptic gospel - Mt 13.31-32, Mk 4.30-32, Lk 13.18-19. So also
            >does the Parable of the Divided House - Mk 12.25-26, Mk 3.23-26, Lk
            >11.17-18, and also the Messenger - Mt 11.10, Mk 1.2, Lk 7.27.
            >
            (SNIP)
            >
            >For this reason, I think you will find that Definition (1) above is not
            >acceptable to exponents of the 2DH. On the 2DH, "Q" ,must have been more
            >than the double tradition.

            In the passages Brian mentions it is the non-Marcan bits common to Matthew
            and Luke that provide a warrant on the 2ST for including the passages in
            question in Q; the "non-Marcan matter common to Matthew and Luke"
            formulation catches these "Mark/Q overlaps" in the Triple Tradition along
            with the Double Tradition material and so can stand, I think.

            I may have confused this in the original post by mentioning the Double
            Tradition in the same sentence in which the "non-Marcan matter" definition
            was offered. I did this in an attempt to hold open the possibility that
            verbally disparate "Q" passages might derive from oral tradition rather
            than a document Q; thanks to Brian I see that this leaves unclarified the
            status of verbally identical passages claimed as Mark/Q overlaps. If
            compelled to expound the 2ST, I would be inclined to claim (e.g.) the
            threefold Temptation narrative as derived from the Q document, not oral
            tradition. I would be interested to know if any 2ST advocates take the
            latter option.

            (SNIP)

            >Your references to Mt 1.25=Lk 1.31, and Mt 26.68=Lk 22.64, underline the
            >absence of a satisfactory definition of "Q". They also raise the
            >question of whether, on the 2DH, it is possible to define the Minor
            >Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. Where do the Minor
            >Agreements end, and the other agreements of Matthew and Luke against
            >Mark begin? If, on the 2DH, we have no satisfactory definition of "Q",
            >does it not follow that neither do we have a satisfactory definition of
            >the Minor Agreements?

            Wouldn't the agreements on the basis of which Mark/Q overlap is posited
            qualify as MAs? I understand this label to refer to agreements of Matthew
            and Luke against Mark in wording, but not in order (I think I took this
            definition from Mark Goodacre's _Goulder and the Gospels_, though I do not
            have the book handy and my memory may be faulty) -- or perhaps to agreement
            in one of these categories but not both. (Will I be removed from the list
            if I confess to not having read Neirynck's discussion of them?)

            Best,

            Jeff

            Jeffrey Peterson
            Institute for Christian Studies
            Austin, Texas, USA
          • Mark Goodacre
            ... I think that this is a good point. I have argued (in _Goulder and the Gospels_ and my web pages) that one might see a sliding scale of influence of
            Message 5 of 5 , Sep 9, 1998
              Brian E. Wilson wrote in response to Jeff Peterson:

              > >Your references to Mt 1.25=Lk 1.31, and Mt 26.68=Lk 22.64, underline the
              > >absence of a satisfactory definition of "Q". They also raise the question of
              > >whether, on the 2DH, it is possible to define the Minor Agreements of Matthew
              > >and Luke against Mark. Where do the Minor Agreements end, and the other
              > >agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark begin? If, on the 2DH, we have no
              > >satisfactory definition of "Q", does it not follow that neither do we have a
              > >satisfactory definition of the Minor Agreements?

              I think that this is a good point. I have argued (in _Goulder and the Gospels_
              and my web pages) that one might see a sliding scale of influence of Matthew on
              Luke as follows:

              Triple tradition passages featuring minor agreements [there are no triple
              tradition passages without minor agreements]

              So called Mark-Q overlap passages

              Double tradition

              There are further levels in between, e.g. passages with major minor agreements
              (e.g. Five Thousand), disputed Mark-Q overlap (e.g. Baptism of Jesus) and so
              on. I think that this observation helps us to dispense with the objection made
              by Neirynck, Friedrichsen and Tuckett that the Minor Agreements between Matthew
              and Luke against Mark are "too minor" to be significant. It is a trick of the
              light -- anything more major than "minor" goes straight into Q.

              Jeff wrote:

              > Wouldn't the agreements on the basis of which Mark/Q overlap is posited
              > qualify as MAs? I understand this label to refer to agreements of Matthew and
              > Luke against Mark in wording, but not in order (I think I took this definition
              > from Mark Goodacre's _Goulder and the Gospels_, though I do not have the book
              > handy and my memory may be faulty) -- or perhaps to agreement in one of these
              > categories but not both. (Will I be removed from the list if I confess to not
              > having read Neirynck's discussion of them?)

              The distinction between MAs and Mark-Q overlap is wonderfully blurred the more
              that one thinks about it. The definition Jeff remembers is not mine. I made a
              somewhat arbitrary decision when writing on the MAs in _Goulder and the
              Gospels_ to work with the following definition of a Mark-Q overlap: (a)
              passages in which there are six or more new words in agreement between Matt.
              and Luke against Mark, or (b) passages in which there is agreement between
              Matthew and Luke against Mark with parallel passages in either Matthew or Luke
              or both or (c) passages in which there is agreement between Matthew and Luke
              against Mark which occurs in Q contexts in Luke.

              But I should say that I developed this definition to try to get a handle on the
              passages that were tending to be called Mark-Q overlap in the literature. This
              definition is arbitrary and was designed purely in order to do some tests on
              'MAs' in order to examine Goulder's claims about Lukan language.

              I do not think that an adequate distinction can be made between MAs and Mark-Q
              overlap except to say that the MAs constitute the passages, on the whole,
              that Q theorists feel happy attributing to independent redaction of Mark and /
              or textual corruption. Mark-Q overlap passages are those that cannot
              begin to be attributed to independent redaction and / or textual corruption and
              so have to go into Q.

              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.findmail.com/list/synoptic-l
              Synoptic-L Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.