Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rgprice wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:18 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:36 am You would be wrong. In 1905, Wellhausen complained that the literary relationship of Mark to Q had not really even been investigated up to that point. And the Two-Source Theory had, by that date, already been in circulation for more than 60 years and fairly popular for about 40. Clearly, the relationship of Mark to Q had nothing to do with the original formulation of the Q hypothesis. It was all about Matthew and Luke.
To say that the relationship of Mark to Q never had anything to do with the Q hypothesis is very misleading. Obviously Q contains material not found in Mark. By that very statement we have defined a relationship to Mark.
What does this mean?
At its core, the 2DH proposes that two people independently integrated two separate sources.
Correct. It proposes that Matthew and Luke independently integrated Mark and Q.
If you talk about Q being derived from Mark, then you are no longer talking about two people independently integrating two sources.
Incorrect, and I do not see how you are even arriving at such an illogical conclusion. The question of whether Mark and Q are independent of each other does not change whether Matthew and Luke combined the two independently. Those are logically separate issues.
Here not a single proposal has Q being derived from Mark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_ ... on_to_Mark
Q depending on Mark is not a very popular position, that is certainly true. Which has nothing to do whether Q depending on Mark still falls under the umbrella of the Two-Source Theory.
Show me somewhere that describes Q as a document derived from Mark?
That was Wellhausen's view. He argued that Q knew Mark. Not many have taken up his idea. But Wellhausen is one of the hallmark names in the history of the Two-Source Theory.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Soooooo...Both of you, Ben and rgp, agree that "Jesus" existed?

Without an existing Jesus, the entire Q argument falls apart. You are left with "Sources" which both Mark and apparently John used. There was material left over, which has been reshaped by Matthew and Luke.

From the fact that the "Jesus Stories" came from Sources, it does not follow that the "Source Stories" were about "Jesus".

Therefore, If "Q" then Q is an Intermediate Document, created to give the appearance of a "Sayings Document", coming from a Created Character.

"Did 'Jesus' exist"?
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by rgprice »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:36 am Incorrect, and I do not see how you are even arriving at such an illogical conclusion. The question of whether Mark and Q are independent of each other does not change whether Matthew and Luke combined the two independently. Those are logically separate issues.
It absolutely does. If Mark and Q are entirely independent, then the sayings of Q were written with no preconceptions about the Markan narrative. They weren't designed to fit into Mark in any way.

Matthew and Luke both contain many sayings that are integrated with the Gospel of Mark is very similar ways, even when they are repositioned in some cases. If Mark and Q are totally independent, then that means that Matthew and Luke would have to have taken a list of sayings and decided on almost identical ways to merge those sayings into the narrative of Mark all on their own, over and over again. And that, primarily is exactly what the 2DH proposes.

If Q is derived from Mark, however, then the situation is totally different. First of all, there is no need to propose that Q is even a sayings document. At that point Q can just as easily be a Gospel. But lets suppose that its a sayings document. If someone read Mark, then sat down and started making up sayings as they went along in Mark, then they would have built those sayings with Mark in mind in a way that was designed to fit into the Markan narrative. At that point, the sayings would have been like puzzle pieces designed to be fit into a specific place. So two people fitting the puzzle pieces into place would be expected to get similar results. If I hand two people the same jigsaw puzzle I expect that they will both end up with the same picture.

But if I hand two people matching boxes of 1,000 random Legos with no instructions, I don't expect they will both build the same thing with them.

For example, if I were to just randomly amass popular quotes from different sources and I came up with a collection of 100 quotes. And I handed you and someone else a copy of Harry Potter and I tasked you and someone else with incorporating those random sayings into Harry Potter, the result with be very different than if I read Harry Potter and as I went along I made by own sayings that expanded upon the existing dialog Harry Potter. If I did that, and then I handed you and someone those sayings, I'd expect that you would both end up with much more similar results.

And thirdly, if I handed you and someone else my own expansion of Harry Potter, where I re-wrote it and made it longer with more dialog and I told you two to produce your own versions using my longer version as your starting point, then of course you should end up with lots of minor agreements against the original Harry Potter. But at that point, YOU weren't the one "integrating" the new dialog. I was the one who did that. Agreement between you and your counterpart was due to the fact that you were both copying from a single common source. There was no independent integration to begin with.

From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis
"Therefore, the minor agreements, if taken seriously, force a choice between accepting pure Markan priority on one hand or the existence of Q on the other hand, but not both simultaneously as the 2SH requires."

This forced choice only needs to occur if one assumes the independence of Mark from Q, so obviously this is implicit in the hypothesis. If Q is derived from Mark then the minor agreements are easily explained, as they exist within Q itself, which is already integrated with Mark.
That was Wellhausen's view. He argued that Q knew Mark. Not many have taken up his idea. But Wellhausen is one of the hallmark names in the history of the Two-Source Theory.
Right, a position that has been rejected by Q theorists, because it essentially invalidates the entire theory. I'm not sure this supports your case. This notes that Wellhausen cast doubt on assumptions of Q, and was then rejected. The existing assumption clearly was that Q was independent of Mark, which Wellhausen challenged. His position was rejected, meaning that the majority of Q theorists reject the idea that Q is dependent on Mark.

And again, if Q is dependent on Mark, then "Q" is just another Gospel. At that point there is no different between saying "Q theory" and "Matthew and Luke both copied from a lost Gospel." But Q theory is not taken to mean talking about a simple lost Gospel, its about a separate sayings source that was independent from Mark. If its not independent from Mark it has no real meaning.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

"While the standard two-source theory holds Mark and Q to be independent, some argue that Q was also a source for Mark. This is sometimes called the Modified two-document hypothesis (although that term was also used in older literature to refer to the Four-document hypothesis)"

Even here, Mark is derived from Q, not the other way around. This is used for the appeals to Mark-Q overlaps. But clearly, nothing is said about Q being derived from Mark. Such proposals end up really having nothing do to with Q, and are thus rejected by Q theorists.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by rgprice »

Charles Wilson wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:02 am Soooooo...Both of you, Ben and rgp, agree that "Jesus" existed?

Without an existing Jesus, the entire Q argument falls apart. You are left with "Sources" which both Mark and apparently John used. There was material left over, which has been reshaped by Matthew and Luke.

From the fact that the "Jesus Stories" came from Sources, it does not follow that the "Source Stories" were about "Jesus".

Therefore, If "Q" then Q is an Intermediate Document, created to give the appearance of a "Sayings Document", coming from a Created Character.

"Did 'Jesus' exist"?
I don't ascribe to Q at all. I'm just saying that in order for Q to have meaning, it cannot have been derived from Mark. And I an certain that the overwhelming majority of Q advocates would agree with that.

To me talking about "Q" as something dependent upon Mark is no longer talking about "Q". "Q" at that point is not a "lost source" it is simply a lost Gospel. Its just a longer version of Mark. Clearly, when Q advocates talk about Q, they aren't talking about a longer version of Mark. All of the decades of arguments about Q would be unnecessary if Q were accepted simply as a longer version of Mark. The reason for all of the controversy and complexity of the argument is because Q is taken to be independent from Mark.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rgprice wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:10 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:36 am Incorrect, and I do not see how you are even arriving at such an illogical conclusion. The question of whether Mark and Q are independent of each other does not change whether Matthew and Luke combined the two independently. Those are logically separate issues.
It absolutely does. If Mark and Q are entirely independent, then the sayings of Q were written with no preconceptions about the Markan narrative. They weren't designed to fit into Mark in any way.

Matthew and Luke both contain many sayings that are integrated with the Gospel of Mark is very similar ways, even when they are repositioned in some cases. If Mark and Q are totally independent, then that means that Matthew and Luke would have to have taken a list of sayings and decided on almost identical ways to merge those sayings into the narrative of Mark all on their own, over and over again. And that, primarily is exactly what the 2DH proposes.

If Q is derived from Mark, however, then the situation is totally different.
I agree that the overall picture may change dramatically depending on whether either Mark or Q is derived from the other. That is not what I am discussing. I am responding to this statement:
rgprice wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:10 am Something has to be clarified here. Q is only "Q" if Q is nothing more than a sayings document, that existed before Mark. If you are talking about something that was derived from Mark, then that cannot be Q.
I am saying that the highlighted portion is wrong. Q theorists, when they have addressed the question at all, have debated which came first, or whether one was derived from the other, and both options have been espoused by big names in the game. I completely agree that the "Q knew Mark" option is far less popular than the "Mark knew Q" option (which in turn is less popular than the "let us just assume they were independent without discussion" option). But it being less popular is not the same thing at all as it no longer counting as a Q theory. This is why I have said a couple of times now that you may redefine things for your own purposes, but that you are not reflecting the common usage. That is what I am saying. Nobody disputes that Wellhausen was a Two-Source theorist; nobody disputes that he held to a Q hypothesis. Most think he was wrong, but that is not the same thing.
Right, a position that has been rejected by Q theorists, because it essentially invalidates the entire theory.
You have a right to this position, obviously. But, if you go one step further and claim that any Q theorist who agrees with Wellhausen is no longer a Q theorist, then in the light of the history of the synoptic problem you are essentially engaging in a No True Scotsman fallacy.

I am not going to respond to your specific arguments for how things change once one posits that Q knew Mark. I could potentially agree with every single one of them and my contention here would not change one bit.
Charles Wilson wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:02 amWithout an existing Jesus, the entire Q argument falls apart.
This, too, is incorrect. (Earl Doherty famously argued that Kloppenborg's layering of Q was an argument against an historical Jesus. Whether he is right or wrong is a matter for discussion, obviously, but one may certainly imagine Q as existing while Jesus did not.)

The existence of Q is independent of the existence of Jesus. It may be easier to argue for one given a particular stance on the other, but what Q is about is accounting for the double tradition on the assumption of mutual Matthean and Lucan independence.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by rgprice »

I think we're mostly on the same page Ben. I would argue to Wellhausen that what he was proposing was no longer Q theory. At that point its semantics I guess, but I don't see how proposing that Matthew and Luke worked from a lost Gospel that was derived from Mark fits into Q theory. At that point any lost source is just being called Q.

At that point, you could say that Matthias Klinghardt's proposal fits into Q. Which is essentially Klinghardt's proposal -- that Marcion's Gospel is Q. But Klinghardt doesn't call himself a Q theorist. He says, appropriately, that his proposals invalidate Q.

In my view, and I believe it is a view that is widely shared by Q advocates, Q has to be a collection of sayings that were produced with no knowledge of any narrative Gospel. Q is intended to be a collection of sayings, not an augmentation of a Gospel. If Q is an augmentation of a narrative Gospel then 95% of what Q theorists argue over is irrelevant.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rgprice wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:46 amIn my view, and I believe it is a view that is widely shared by Q advocates, Q has to be a collection of sayings that were produced with no knowledge of any narrative Gospel. Q is intended to be a collection of sayings, not an augmentation of a Gospel. If Q is an augmentation of a narrative Gospel then 95% of what Q theorists argue over is irrelevant.
What if the author of Q knew Mark and yet produced a Q document exactly like the modern reconstruction of Q by Kloppenborg and Robinson and the rest? If I were to propose that scenario, would I be a Q theorist? The documents themselves have not changed: Mark is still Mark and Q is still Q (as per the most popular reconstruction, anyway); and Matthew and Luke used them both independently of one another. But I come along and suggest that Q extracted at least some its sayings from Mark. (Note that I am not asking whether you think I am wrong or even an idiot for making such a proposal; I am asking whether I am still a Q theorist.)
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Jax »

Purely out of curiosity, is there a link to the contents of the most popular reconstruction of Q?

Would like to review it if so.

Lane
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Ken Olson »

Jax wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:02 pm Purely out of curiosity, is there a link to the contents of the most popular reconstruction of Q?

Would like to review it if so.

Lane
The International Q Project's text of Q in English translation:

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm

Best,

K
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Post by Jax »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:05 pm
Jax wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:02 pm Purely out of curiosity, is there a link to the contents of the most popular reconstruction of Q?

Would like to review it if so.

Lane
The International Q Project's text of Q in English translation:

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm

Best,

K
Right on! Thank you Ken.

Lane
Post Reply