On Fri, 01 Nov 1996, "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...
>At 03:36 10/31/96 -0700, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>>In fact, I once proposed to Ulrich Schmidt (based on the "folkloric"
>>styles of some of the material in Matthew and Luke) that the two
>>gospels had at least *six* sources -- Mark, Q1 (parallel to the
>>Gospel of Thomas), Q2 (Q material not in Thomas), M1, L1, and L2.
>>Some were written (Mark), some oral (Q1, L2), and some I'm not
BTW -- I spelled Ulrich Schmid's name incorrectly. My apologies to him
if he's still out there somewhere....
>First, a minor nit on terminology. It seems to me that the notations
>Q1 and Q2 are already used in synoptic source criticism to denote the
>strata of Q according to Kloppenborg (there is also a Q3). Both the
>Q1 and Q2 layers have parallels to Thomas.
Hey, it's *my* theory; I'll call it what I want. :-)
Seriously, I don't care about the terminology; the point is just that
there seem to have been two Q sources -- one used by Matthew and
Luke, and probably written; the other known also to the author
of Thomas, and probably oral. An example of an item in the latter
is the Parable of the Tares.
>Second, what do you mean by L1 and L2?
Arbitrary; one was written from an early date, the other stayed in
oral tradition much longer.
I repeat, this is just theorizing based on the folkloric "feeling" of
the material involved. I have *not* investigated in detail, and I
don't intend to. If anybody wants to see it, though, here is the
relevant portion of the discussion with Schmid, which started as
a discussion of oral tradition:
>>>>To my mind there are more and more disturbing signals to those mostly naive
>>>>theories on literary dependency of the synoptics...
>>>I can't argue with that, either. I think the "four-source" theory much too
>>>simple. My personal guess is that there were *two* "Q" sources (one written,
>>>one still in oral tradition). I think that several incidents in Mark were
>>>also in oral circulation. I also think that "M" and "L" may have been
>>>composite sources, partly written, partly oral.
>>Do you feel confident to roughly outline those "composite sources, partly
>>written, partly oral" as to which parts might be either written or oral?
>I don't think I have time to do a master's thesis right now, but I'll try. :-)
>One thing that makes this harder is that almost all of the sources
>go back to oral tradition; it's just that some came to the evangelists
>orally and some in written form.
>Also keep in mind that I am doing this largely from memory; I have never
>attempted detailed synoptic analysis (remember that about 80% of my more
>scholarly work has been devoted to Paul and the General Epistles).
>Finally, keep in mind that I don't believe that really intricate source
>analysis will ever be entirely accurate. But here's an outline:
>The infancy narratives are oral.
>The parts of Q which are *the same* in Matthew and Luke are literary, and
>probably form the largest part of "written Q."
>The material common to Matthew and the Gospel of Thomas (e.g. Matt. 13,24-30)
>is part of "oral Q."
>Parts of Q where Matthew and Luke show significant differences are usually
>oral (my feeling is that "written Q," composed almost entirely of sayings
>of Jesus, was copied very precisely by both Matthew and Luke. Anything
>that shows large differences comes from something else). An excellent
>example is Matt. 25,14-30. I think it almost certain that Matthew's version
>was oral -- and that the variants it showed are the result of survivals
>of that oral tradition.
>Of Matthew's special material, I think that Matt. 5,17-47 was written
>and not in Q. So were some of the parables. The rest, I think, is
>mostly oral, or is something that Matthew himself made up based on
>The ending of Luke is oral. I suspect that the differences between Luke's
>and Mark's passion narratives arrise from an oral source.
>Most of Luke's parables came to him orally, although he rewrote many
>Luke's story of Jesus's journey from Galilee to Jerusalem started,
>I think, as a written source, but one that he supplemented heavily.
>If one believes that the ending of Mark has been lost, I think it more
>likely that Matthew preserves it than that Luke does.