spiker said
Yea there’s little if no evidence for anything being written while Jesus was still alive.
Evidence that at least some of the Q document was written while Jesus was still alive comes from Luke 17:26-30 & Matthew 24:38-40 and also from Luke 22:30 & Matthew 19:28. Bart Ehrman argues that these passages are unlikely to have been invented after Jesus’s death and for the same reason they are unlikely to have been written down for the first time after Jesus’s death but, once recorded, they have been faithfully copied ever since.
gavriel said
Blackwell said
If there were “cheat-sheets”, who wrote them?
As for the Q author, there are only a few possible categories, but which category is most probable?
When were the “cheat-sheets” written?
If the Q author was compiling these “cheat-sheets” while Paul was active, why does he not mention them?
As mentioned previously, there is evidence which suggests that some “cheat-sheets” were written while Jesus was still alive.
This is speculation. But it is completely plausible that missionaries traveling in the 40’ies collected stories and sayings, producing minor scripts as an aid in their preaching, since Paul was writing at least from the forties and onward.
I do not think that anything was written when Jesus was alive. Most of his adherents were illiterate and during this period, they were expecting the Son of Man to arrive very soon. It would take many years of reorganization to attract learned people with the ability to preach and write.
When Luke speaks of “many” attempts, he cannot have in mind only Q, Mark and Matthew, that is not “many”, that is “some”. Further, if he knew Matthew, he would hardly call it a “try”. Matthew is not a “try”, it is a pretty impressive gospel.
The basic problem is still that if missionaries and the Q author were Paul’s followers, why did he not mention their activities in his epistles?
On the other hand, if they were from the Jerusalem group with whom Paul was in conflict, why did he not denounce their activities?
Blackwell said
The basic problem is still that if missionaries and the Q author were Paul’s followers, why did he not mention their activities in his epistles?
On the other hand, if they were from the Jerusalem group with whom Paul was in conflict, why did he not denounce their activities?
There were probably many other Christian groups, possessing knowledge of Jesus teaching, who where not Paul’s followers.
spiker said
[extracts…]
Yea, here’s the problem, I think, Farrer/Goodacre see Matt as the source.
To me this suggests that M or Matthew’s special source(s) is the origin of what you refer to as DT; if this is the case, it would seem M might either contain Q ( I am totally ignorant of what M is supposed to be) or that Matt could have drawn from
M and Q.
According to the Farrer hypthosis and its various variants, DT is simply what Luke chose to use from Matthew, that did not exist in Mark. According to the two-source hypotheses, DT is what both Luke and Matthew both included from a common source or sources.
It is nearly universally accepted that both Luke and Matthew used Mark as a starting point, as a framework for their editorial activity, and both maintain the Markan order of pericopes to a high degree, and Luke the most.
Next they inserted the DT material, but they both did it completely differently. This strongly suggest that DT came from a source common to both, and that they inserted it into the Markan framework where they felt it was most appropriate. Ehrman has a post on this, see the one titled “Did Matthew Copy Luke or Luke Matthew?”.
This convinces me of the correctness of the Q-explanation for DT, provided one is able to suggest some convincing , additional explanation for the so-called “minor agreements” problem, as previously explained.
I’m currently reading Sanders/Davies “** you do not have permission to see this link **“, which really go deep on this issue, and I shall pause for while in this discussion.
Blackwell said
Evidence that at least some of the Q document was written while Jesus was still alive comes from Luke 17:26-30 & Matthew 24:38-40 and also from Luke 22:30 & Matthew 19:28. Bart Ehrman argues that these passages are unlikely to have been invented after Jesus’s death and for the same reason they are unlikely to have been written down for the first time after Jesus’s death but, once recorded, they have been faithfully copied ever since.
That’s not much evidence. Not being invented and being written down at the time are very different things. You seem to want to equate “not invented” with “written down in Jesus lifetime” Further Ehrman’s argument is based in the critical method. If a passage
clear certain hurdles, it’s probable that it goes back to Jesus. But probably is not the same thing as it really does and it certainly isn’t evidence of someone taking notes
And I am going to have to reject the idea that Ehrman argued “once recorded, they have been faithfully copied ever since.” That doesn’t sound like him and in the future you might want to foot note the arguments you cite. I you’re accepting Ehrman on the above point, it seems you should, for consistency sake, accept his judgement about literacy in that time and place. I think Gav’s idea of “cheat sheets” is more plausible employing Bauckham’s living memory thesis. In that context it’s entirely Plausible they were more “likely to have been written down for the first time after Jesus’s death”; otherwise why not just encourage get ppl to go here this guy speak.
The basic problem is still that if missionaries and the Q author were Paul’s followers, why did he not mention their activities in his epistles? On the other hand, if they were from the Jerusalem group with whom Paul was in conflict, why did he not denounce their activities?
Who says he didn’t? Are you sure that the 7 uncontested letters and the other 6 are all that Paul wrote? What’s your evidence? This might be called the Why Paul didn’t write what I want him to have written argument. But you construct your argument based on the idea that if people were writing things at the same time, all the parties would be aware of it SOMEHOW. Assuming Paul was aware of it, why would he feel compelled to include it in his communication with his churches? Paul spent a great deal of time traveling, preaching, raising money and keeping his churches in the fold so to speak. How often does Paul tell us what Barnabas is doing? I mean here’s a guy we know traveled with Paul and that Paul probably would have had some idea of what he was doing. What about Timothy or John Mark?
gavriel said
spiker said
[extracts…]
Yea, here’s the problem, I think, Farrer/Goodacre see Matt as the source.
To me this suggests that M or Matthew’s special source(s) is the origin of what you refer to as DT; if this is the case, it would seem M might either contain Q ( I am totally ignorant of what M is supposed to be) or that Matt could have drawn from
M and Q.According to the Farrer hypthosis and its various variants, DT is simply what Luke chose to use from Matthew, that did not exist in Mark. According to the two-source hypotheses, DT is what both Luke and Matthew both included from a common source or sources.
It is nearly universally accepted that both Luke and Matthew used Mark as a starting point, as a framework for their editorial activity, and both maintain the Markan order of pericopes to a high degree, and Luke the most.
Next they inserted the DT material, but they both did it completely differently. This strongly suggest that DT came from a source common to both, and that they inserted it into the Markan framework where they felt it was most appropriate. Ehrman has a post on this, see the one titled “Did Matthew Copy Luke or Luke Matthew?”.
This convinces me of the correctness of the Q-explanation for DT, provided one is able to suggest some convincing , additional explanation for the so-called “minor agreements” problem, as previously explained.
I’m currently reading Sanders/Davies “** you do not have permission to see this link **“, which really go deep on this issue, and I shall pause for while in this discussion.
I probably have read Did Matt, but found the following article yesterday ** you do not have permission to see this link **
It also struck me that Ehrman accepted this source because he used it in DJE
According to Mark Good Acre’s, Fallacies at the heart of Q
Many scholars and students of the New Testament labour under the misapprehension that the theory of Marcan Priority necessitates believing in the existence of Q, but this is a fallacy.
- The Two-Source Theory holds that Matthew and Luke used Mark independently of one another. This makes Q a necessity. It is the means of explaining the existence of double tradition material (the passages found only in Matthew and Luke)….
- However, the independence of Matthew and Luke is not a necessary element in the theory of Markan Priority. The Farrer Theory strongly affirms the use of Mark by Matthew and Luke, adding that Luke also knew Matthew….
- The question that the Farrer Theory forces us to ask is this: does Luke’s knowledge of Mark seem to be independent of Matthew’s knowledge of Mark? Or are there signs that Luke knows not only Mark but also Matthew’s reworking of Mark?
Goodacre also throws in a table comparing the 3 authors. It’s certainly worth looking at.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I added Sanders/Davies to the list of books I will probably never get to in my life time: The candy store is big and I get a tummy ache after eating a few pieces.
spiker said
That’s not much evidence. Not being invented and being written down at the time are very different things. You seem to want to equate “not invented” with “written down in Jesus lifetime” Further Ehrman’s argument is based in the critical method. If a passage
clear certain hurdles, it’s probable that it goes back to Jesus. But probably is not the same thing as it really does and it certainly isn’t evidence of someone taking notes
Ehrman’s argument (see “How Jesus became God”) is that these passages contradict how Christians thought about Jesus after his death. That is why it is unlikely that they were invented after his death and why it is unlikely that a Christian wrote them down for the first time after his death.
gavriel said
There were probably many other Christian groups, possessing knowledge of Jesus teaching, who where not Paul’s followers.
These other Christian groups may have been spreading stories, but we are talking about people writing things down.
How many ‘Christians’ were there in the 40’s who were literate, let alone could write in Greek? It does not seem likely that there were more than a handful, and all of them city dwellers (See Bart Ehrman’s 4th August post), so it is probable that Paul heard about most of them. How is it that we have no record that Paul knew about such a controversial matter as the actual words of Jesus? Were there no disputes about who had the correct version?
Blackwell said
spiker said
That’s not much evidence. Not being invented and being written down at the time are very different things. You seem to want to equate “not invented” with “written down in Jesus lifetime” Further Ehrman’s argument is based in the critical method. If a passage
clear certain hurdles, it’s probable that it goes back to Jesus. But probably is not the same thing as it really does and it certainly isn’t evidence of someone taking notesEhrman’s argument (see “How Jesus became God”) is that these passages contradict how Christians thought about Jesus after his death. That is why it is unlikely that they were invented after his death and why it is unlikely that a Christian wrote them down for the first time after his death.
Uh yea I know the argument, but 1.) That says nothing about them being faithfully copied 2.) Says nothing about them being written down 3.) is very thin evidence for your claim (which by the way is entirely consistent with my assertion about little or no evidence) 4.) Christians certainly did not just suddenly start thinking differently about Jesus on Sunday afternoon and that the apocalyptic sensibilities probably lasted for some time. After all, Paul, himself, was also an apocalyptic thinker and expected the end to come any time soon
Blackwell said
Spiker,What evidence is there that the Q document was composed after the death of Jesus?
All we can say for sure is that Mark didn’t know “Q” and Matthew and Luke did. This is one of those cases where we’ll never know the answer barring some amazing and extremely unlikely discovery. This is why the arguments and speculations will be never ending. It’s kind of a buzz kill for scholars to just admit we’ll never know. But that’s the truth.
But it’s highly unlikely “Q” (if it existed as a separate document) can be traced back to before Jesus’ death for the simple reason that scholars can show through textual analysis that it was written in Greek which would put it late enough for there to have to be a literate Greek speaking Christian community, an anachronism in Jesus’ lifetime. But it could still be quite primitive; Paul is writing Greek within twenty years of Jesus’ death. But if it’s that primitive then of course you have to explain why Mark didn’t know about the material.
And the arguments against “Q” being a separate document don’t resolve anything either. Even if Luke knew Matthew you still have to explain where Matthew got the material. Mark didn’t know about it writing circa 70 AD.
We’ll never know.
Stephen said
Blackwell said
Spiker,What evidence is there that the Q document was composed after the death of Jesus?
All we can say for sure is that Mark didn’t know “Q” and Matthew and Luke did. This is one of those cases where we’ll never know the answer barring some amazing and extremely unlikely discovery. This is why the arguments and speculations will be never ending. It’s kind of a buzz kill for scholars to just admit we’ll never know. But that’s the truth.
But it’s highly unlikely “Q” (if it existed as a separate document) can be traced back to before Jesus’ death for the simple reason that scholars can show through textual analysis that it was written in Greek which would put it late enough for there to have to be a literate Greek speaking Christian community, an anachronism in Jesus’ lifetime. But it could still be quite primitive; Paul is writing Greek within twenty years of Jesus’ death. But if it’s that primitive then of course you have to explain why Mark didn’t know about the material.
And the arguments against “Q” being a separate document don’t resolve anything either. Even if Luke knew Matthew you still have to explain where Matthew got the material. Mark didn’t know about it writing circa 70 AD.
We’ll never know.
The origin of the Q document does not require the existence of a literate Greek speaking community. A single wealthy individual (plus servants) is sufficient if this person was sympathetic to Jesus’s apocalyptic
Blackwell said
Spiker,What evidence is there that the Q document was composed after the death of Jesus?
Strange question, Blackwell. Stephen pretty much nailed it. You would do far better by keeping your dogs on a leash rather than letting them run wild: Making assumptions and then reading them into the past isn’t going to get you reliable answers. Let the dogs pick up the scent. Let them lead you where you need to go and don’t step in any of their droppings.
….it is probable that Paul heard about most of them. How is it that we have no record that Paul knew about such a controversial matter as the actual words of Jesus? Were there no disputes about who had the correct version?
Why is it probable? Why would he have heard of them? If he had why do you think we would “have a record”? Why would Jesus actual words have been controversial? For openers Paul spent most of his time raising money, traveling, starting churches, and attending to them. Would he have had time to get to know every person that could make there mark? Time to do a survey in every city to find out who might be able to read ,sign their name or actually compose? Further, there is nearly 2000 years between Paul and us. Records are bound to be increasingly fragmentary. There are only 7 undisputed Pauline letters and 6 that are open to question. Does that mean Paul wrote somewhere between 7 and 13 letters and no more?
Blackwell said
The origin of the Q document does not require the existence of a literate Greek speaking community. A single wealthy individual (plus servants) is sufficient if this person was sympathetic to Jesus’s apocalyptic
No one said anything about what is required for the origin of Q. Stephen stated “scholars can show through textual analysis that it was written in Greek which would put it late enough for there to have to be a literate Greek speaking Christian community, an anachronism in Jesus’ lifetime.”
That is to say scholars, using actual evidence as opposed to wishful thinking, can show Q was written in Greek. This means looking at evidence and seeing where it takes you instead of dragging it behind you. Maybe, just maybe, if you weren’t so determined to go crashing through the door, you might find that it’s not locked.
spiker said
Strange question, Blackwell. Stephen pretty much nailed it. You would do far better by keeping your dogs on a leash rather than letting them run wild: Making assumptions and then reading them into the past isn’t going to get you reliable answers. Let the dogs pick up the scent. Let them lead you where you need to go and don’t step in any of their droppings.
You really should look at the evidence and consider all possibilities before jumping to a conclusion.
Even if indications are that the Q document was written in Greek, this does not prove that it originated after Jesus’s death. It could be the work of a single wealthy individual (plus servants) who was sympathetic to Jesus’s apocalyptic message.
So what evidence is there that it originated after Jesus’s death?
Blackwell said
spiker said
Strange question, Blackwell. Stephen pretty much nailed it. You would do far better by keeping your dogs on a leash rather than letting them run wild: Making assumptions and then reading them into the past isn’t going to get you reliable answers. Let the dogs pick up the scent. Let them lead you where you need to go and don’t step in any of their droppings.
You really should look at the evidence and consider all possibilities before jumping to a conclusion.
Even if indications are that the Q document was written in Greek, this does not prove that it originated after Jesus’s death. It could be the work of a single wealthy individual (plus servants) who was sympathetic to Jesus’s apocalyptic message.
So what evidence is there that it originated after Jesus’s death?
You really should look at the evidence and consider all possibilities before jumping to a conclusion.
You mean rather than pulling stuff from your behind and calling it evidence? No one has jumped to conclusions except you. For someone advocating looking at the evidence, you missed both of Steven’s points. 1 that scholars can show through textual analysis that it was written in Greek and that 2 this would put it late enough for there to have to be a literate Greek speaking Christian community, an anachronism in Jesus’ lifetime. Now onto the third post discussing Stephen’s argument, you haven’t weighed those points together and considered the probability that he is right. Weighing evidence is not “jumping to conclusions” ignoring evidence” and selecting a conclusion because you want it to be true IS jumping to conclusions.
And you continue to ask me the same strange question as if asking it repeatedly makes it more insightful SOMEHOW.
So let me answer it; yet again since the first answer was not worth your time. I made no claim about when Q was written, I simply challenged your wishful thinking or what you want to call evidence. After all, based on Ehrman’s belief that these sayings go back to Jesus, you’ve concluded that they were written down, faithfully copied and everyone lived happily ever after. Indeed, your assertion that Ehrman thinks they were faithfully copied hardly sounds like him.
It could be the work of a single wealthy individual….
And now you want to hang everything on “COULD BE” That’s your evidence? COULD BE!?
“A problem with the hypothesis that Q was written in the 50’s or 60’s from oral tradition is that this is a notoriously unreliable way to transmit speech, resulting in documents which record what the author thought Jesus might have said or should have said rather than what he actually said.”
The only problem is that you’ve constructed an argument to fit your assumptions Are you conceding that the NT, having been written in the 70s and later, is “notoriously unreliable” ? Further, why would we think the authors (editors?) would have agreed with you about the reliability of transmission?
Sounds like your reading modern standards into the first century. It’s not clear at all why someone deciding to write this stuff down in the 50s or 60s would have decided not to do it out of deference to a modern standard. If you’re going to make that kind of argument, why not say, a problem with the date range is they didn’t have printing presses at the time. After all, we know that copying by hand was “notoriously unreliable”.
What evidence is there that the Q document was composed after the death of Jesus?
Perhaps the third time is the charm. Traditional dating for Q is between 40 and 80 that puts it, at the risk of “jumping to a conclusion”, 7 to 10 years after Jesus death. What Ehrman was talking about was specific sayings he thinks go back to Jesus.
Throw in Bauckham’s living memory hypothesis and voila! no need for a written record or since we want to consider “every possibility” maybe aliens were watching and wrote everything down as it was happening and one of them dropped their notepad
Maybe Jesus wrote a letter to someone and it took the Post Office a really long time to deliver it or maybe someone just made the whole thing up.
Stephen said All we can say for sure is that Mark didn’t know “Q” and Matthew and Luke did.
Yet, even that has at least been called into question by Burton mack as late as 1993. According to an extract posted on Early Christian writings.
Burton Mack writes about Mark and Q (The Lost Gospel, pp. 177-179):
** you do not have permission to see this link **Mark wrote his story of Jesus some time after the war and shortly after Q had been revised with the Q3 additions. If we date Q3 around 75 C.E. to give some time for the additions obviously prompted by the ware, Mark can be dated between 75 and 80 C.E. . . . For Mark, Q was extremely useful, for it had already positioned Jesus at the hinge of an epic-apocalyptic history, and it contained themes and narrative material that could easily be turned into a more eventful depiction of Jesus’ public appearance. Q provided Mark with a large number of themes essential to his narrative. He was taken with the epic-apocalyptic mythology, the theme of prophetic prediction, and the announcment of judgment upon the scribes, Pharisees, and “this generation.” The figure of the son of man intrigued him, as did the notion that the kingdom of God would be fully revealed only at the eschaton when the son of man (or Jesus, according to Mark) (re)appeared. Q also provided material that could easily be turned to advantage as building blocks in a coherent narrative account. The John-Jesus material was a great opener. The figure of the holy spirit was ready-made to connect the Q material on John and Jesus with the miracle stories Mark would use. Q’s characterization of Jesus as the all-knowing one could be used to enhance his authority as a self-referential speaker in the pronouncement stories Mark already had from his own community. The notion of Jesus as the son of God could be used to create mystique, divide the house on the question of Jesus’ true identity, and develop narrative anticipation, the device scholars call Mark’s “messianic secret.” The instruction for the workers in the harvest could be turned into a mission charge, and the theme of discipleship could be combined and given narrative profile by introducing a few disciples into the story. The apocalyptic predictions at the end of Q could then become instructions to the disciples at that point in the story where Jesus turns to go to Jerusalem. And, as scholars know, there are a myriad of interesting points at which the so-called overlaps between Mark and Q show Mark’s use of Q material for his own narrative designs.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I know the early christian writings site and it’s a great resource. But I don’t buy Mack’s view. Mark knows “Q” and never ever quotes even one of those wonderful Jesus sayings? C’mon! There are a few instances where Mark and “Q” seem to be referring to the same stories but you can easily explain that by the two of them having variant traditions of the those same stories. Multiple attestation.
The thing about “Q” that would fascinate me most to know is if it ever had a Passion or a Resurrection narrative. Neither Matthew or Luke or John seem to have derived their versions of these stories from Mark or each other. Matthew and Luke’s Passion and Resurrection narratives are as different in detail and emphasis as their Nativity stories. it’s easy to see why they might find Mark’s account unsatisfactory but since they have so little in common did they find “Q” narrative unsatisfactory or did “Q” simply not have such? (Or was it just a confession? Just a statement of faith that Jesus died and was resurrected and so not really usable in a full gospel?)
In the annoying absence of evidence speculation abounds.
Stephen said
I know the early christian writings site and it’s a great resource. But I don’t buy Mack’s view. Mark knows “Q” and never ever quotes even one of those wonderful Jesus sayings? C’mon! There are a few instances where Mark and “Q” seem to be referring to the same stories but you can easily explain that by the two of them having variant traditions of the those same stories. Multiple attestation.The thing about “Q” that would fascinate me most to know is if it ever had a Passion or a Resurrection narrative. Neither Matthew or Luke or John seem to have derived their versions of these stories from Mark or each other. Matthew and Luke’s Passion and Resurrection narratives are as different in detail and emphasis as their Nativity stories. it’s easy to see why they might find Mark’s account unsatisfactory but since they have so little in common did they find “Q” narrative unsatisfactory or did “Q” simply not have such? (Or was it just a confession? Just a statement of faith that Jesus died and was resurrected and so not really usable in a full gospel?)
In the annoying absence of evidence speculation abounds.
So, do you also reject a stratified Q?
The reason, btw, I cited Mack’s work is because 1.) I was fascinated by the idea but more importantly, to emphasize the your previous point: “This is one of those cases where we’ll never know the answer barring some amazing and extremely unlikely discovery. This is why the arguments and speculations will be never ending.” Personally, I do not know enough about the subject to decide either way. To be sure, I doubt it matters very much if Mark knew or relied on it since, if I am not mistaken, Q is identified as the source of where Matt and Luke disagree with Mark.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert