Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre

[Philologus]

I was referring to an argument I read stating that a Q gospel would have been deemed unlike normal gospels in terms of format before Thomas was discovered.

Did you read this in a work written by a proponent of Q who claimed this is something Q skeptics did or would have done, or did you ever read such an argument from a (scholarly) Q skeptic first hand?

I don't remember, but I suspect it was one of Bart Ehrman's books. The argument for Q was presented by providing the usual evidence, followed by a "But Wait" section wondering how come the supposed Q gospel is so different from the usual gospels, which would have been a problem until you consider the similar Thomas gospel, the argument said.

I sense from some of the arguments against Q that the only thing that would meet the bar would be an actual manuscript of Q.

This is something you sense, like a subjective impression? You seem to imply that Goodacre and other advocates of Farrer (i.e., Luke's use of Matt in addition to Mark) are dismissing arguments for Q in favor of implausible alternatives.

Goodacre says that he favors minimizing hypothetical sources. I think we shouldn't propose more hypothetical sources than we need to explain the evidence, but we shouldn't favor minimizing hypothetical sources. Perhaps I misunderstood Goodacre.

Could you give your best case, or maybe your two or three best cases, to show that Luke's use of Matthew is implausible, and therefore we must deduce the existence of Q (i.e., where is the unreasonable burden of proof you allege)?

I am not an expert or even a credible hobbyist, just a spectator who relies on the likes of Ehrman and Kloppenborg. I can't comment on the Greek grammar and just take their word for it.

That said, I like the arguments www.alangarrow.com makes that IF we are to assume that Matthew and Luke knew each other, it seems more likely that Matthew copied from Luke rather than the opposite. (Alan Garrow has his own theory as you can tell but that's irrelevant as far as showing convincing reasons that Luke didn't know Matthew). There's also the issue of alternating primitivity and Luke's strange omissions of Matthean material.

[Ken Olson]

Ken: This is something you sense, like a subjective impression? You seem to imply that Goodacre and other advocates of Farrer (i.e., Luke's use of Matt in addition to Mark) are dismissing arguments for Q in favor of implausible alternatives.

Goodacre says that he favors minimizing hypothetical sources. I think we shouldn't propose more hypothetical sources than we need to explain the evidence, but we shouldn't favor minimizing hypothetical sources. Perhaps I misunderstood Goodacre.

Yes, you are misunderstanding Goodacre. When you say we shouldn't propose more hypothetical sources than we need to explain the evidence, that is what he means by minimizing hypothetical sources.

Ken: Could you give your best case, or maybe your two or three best cases, to show that Luke's use of Matthew is implausible, and therefore we must deduce the existence of Q (i.e., where is the unreasonable burden of proof you allege)?

I am not an expert or even a credible hobbyist, just a spectator who relies on the likes of Ehrman and Kloppenborg. I can't comment on the Greek grammar and just take their word for it.

That said, I like the arguments www.alangarrow.com makes that IF we are to assume that Matthew and Luke knew each other, it seems more likely that Matthew copied from Luke rather than the opposite. (Alan Garrow has his own theory as you can tell but that's irrelevant as far as showing convincing reasons that Luke didn't know Matthew).

I am familiar with Alan Garrow's work (and Alan Garrow himself) and he has made several arguments against Luke's use of Matthew. I think all of them are poor, and have responded to them elsewhere, but since you're not using them, we'll skip them.

There's also the issue of alternating primitivity and Luke's strange omissions of Matthean material.

Not "also". These are the reasons you have given.

First, the claim that there is alternating primitivity in the double tradition (sometimes Matthew has the earlier version of a pericope, sometimes Luke) is used to justify inferring the existence of Q. For which pericopes can you clearly show Luke is earlier than Matthew? (Note: Luke 22.19-20 may be dependent on 1 Cor 11.23-25; this might mean Luke's version is earlier than Matthew's, but would not justify inferring a Q document).

Second, you are claiming that there is Matthean material that it would be strange for Luke to omit. Which Matthean material would it be implauisble for Luke to have ommitted? (There are some who think none of the evangelists would have omitted anything from their sources).

The burden of proof is on the proponents of Q to establish that these claims are true. That is what Goodacre means by minimizing hypothetical sources. If Luke's use of Matthew is plausible, we do not need Q to explain the evidence.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

In this earlier thread re: Garrow:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10916

I attempted to provide the strongest possible form of this argument that I could (as one does), and I was led to conclude from Ken Olson's commendable criticism that the argument does not succeed in establishing its conclusion.