Change of last question:
What is the term used for Q when it does include Mark and overlaps of Mark with the sayings common to Matthew and Luke?
= = =
scholar: a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic.
I am a specialist in particular branches of biblical studies.
Let’s question everyone’s designation of scholar, those who are specialists and those distinguished with degrees if they do not use Robert’s recognized concoction of Q.
In what trade books of Ehrman does he recognize your definition of Q?
In what scholarly books of Ehrman does he recognize your definition of Q?
What undergraduate textbooks recognize your definition of Q?
What scholarly magazines consistently recognize your definition of Q?
Steefen
What is your non-simplistic definition of Q?
Robert
I give you two answers:
Here’s how B.H. Streeter defined the Mk/Q overlaps according to his early view in 1911:
“There are several places where Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all three substantially parallel, but where the variations in detail and additions in which Matthew and Luke agree against Mark are so striking that it is clear they must have derived their versions in part, if not wholly, from some other source than Mark.”
Here’s how Christopher Tuckett explains it in terms of the more common view in 2015:
“… where Mark and Q both shared some material. In general terms, an overlap is scarcely surprising: one would hardly expect two sources containing things purportedly said or done by Jesus (and/or related figures such as John the Baptist) to have absolutely no overlap at all.”
Steefen
There is a “simplistic” term Q and its “simplistic” definition.
You say there is a “non-simplistic” definition of Q and a “non-simplistic” definition of Q.
I say there is no “non-simplistic” term and there is no “non-simplistic” definition of Q.
You say Streeter has a definition from 1911 and Tuckett has a definition from 2015.
Okay, let’s process.
Streeter does not offer a different term or definition of Q. He brings up a different term Mark/Q overlap.
He is saying the details additions of Matthew and Luke (excluding Mark as per the “simplistic” definition of Q) can be held against the details of Mark, although the high level substance parallel/overlap.
Tuckett does not offer a different term or definition of Q.
The information you provided does not show whether or not Tuckett is talking about shared high level substance parallel/overlap or shared details. I think keeping with the “simplistic” definition of Q, Tuckett has not found anything more than what Streeter found: there is high level substance/parallel overlap but not an overlap of details.
In what trade books of Ehrman does he recognize your definition of Q or use a different term?
In what scholarly books of Ehrman does he recognize your definition of Q or use a term other than Q or a qualified Q term?
What undergraduate textbooks recognize your definition of Q or use a qualified Q term or a term other than Q and expanded definition–expanded beyond the simplistic?
What scholarly magazines consistently recognize your qualified term “simplistic Q” or your expanded definition of Q?
In general terms, an overlap is scarcely surprising: one would hardly expect two sources containing things purportedly said or done by Jesus (and/or related figures such as John the Baptist) to have absolutely no overlap at all.
Tuckett’s quote will be useful to remember when we’re discussing John’s relationship with the synoptics.
Robert said
Touché. Hence the appeal of the views of Lambrecht, Fleddermanm, et al, on the one hand, or Farrer, Goodacre, on the other.Note, however, the relatively early proximity in time for Q and Mark and the fact that Mark and John share a relatively unique literary genre. This is also why we look for clearly redactional traces of the synoptic authors in the text of the gospel of John.
Understood and I wouldn’t want to stretch the point too far. It does seem to me though a valid response to one of the most common arguments for Johannine dependence, that John could not have come up with his narrative framework without dependence. But that’s the weakest argument. As you say the strongest argument is a textual one.
But sorry didn’t mean to waylay the thread. The relationship (if any) between Mark and “Q’ is a fascinating one. Interesting that the view of some that Mark was intended to compliment “Q ” parallels of course the view that John meant to compliment the synoptics.
Hngerhman said
I know you did not intend to, but the counterfactual as proposed unfortunately stacks the deck by selecting a well known speech by a well known figure well known for his speeches as the reference document against which to compare the hypothetical found text. Framed as such, the battle is already won before the first shot can be fired.
Perhaps change it to two simultaneously found texts, both without secure authorship, one of which is more difficult in the reading, and it won’t be as stark a disanalogy.
Its the general principle that matters – that the bad copy the good.
If you found one sheet of music with 4 bars written by an obvious genius followed by four bars of someone just banging on a piano, alongside another sheet of music with the same starting 4 bars followed by another four of the same standard, what would the conclusion be? That the writer of the second had found the first and decided to improve the last four bars?
If a poor student hands up a test with all mostly incorrect answers, and a good student handed up their paper with everything correct and an exact matches on the correct answers of the bad student, what should the conclusion be? That the good student had copied the correct answers of the bad student and corrected all the wrong ones?
It can’t be proved that Mark’s less refined style means he copied Matthew, but that is the way the evidence points.
An indistinguishability argument is an interesting tack, but be careful that it doesn’t neglect the base rate probabilities inherent in the two scenarios (one direction of redaction is ex ante less likely than the opposite direction).
With enough whiskey, even I could manufacture any number of indistinguishable scenarios. Say, one lavishly talented author wrote both, with the express intent to flummox future generations that there were seemingly two authors. Indistinguishable? Yes. Equivalent inherent probability? Not in the least.
Yes that was the point, you need to defend what you believe to be the underlying probabilities. That the good writer is improving on the bad writer is a fundamental misreading of the probabilities.
brenmcg said
Its the general principle that matters – that the bad copy the good…
…That the good writer is improving on the bad writer is a fundamental misreading of the probabilities.
As much as the contrarian in me would love to take your side of the bet, I don’t like entering into bets when the probabilities are decidedly stacked against me. We have a markedly differing view of inherent probability here. Which is truly fascinating to me, especially as someone who makes a living (or not) on probabilistic assessments.
I think, but am not sure, that our differences here turn on the disanalogies between how I see what we have (a redactor taking a prior work that he thinks could be improved, factually, stylistically and/or theologically) and how you see the form of the issue (less talented artist butchering a more talented one’s previous work).
It’s not often I just can’t feel the motivating force of an intelligent person’s carefully thought out perspective, even when we disagree. I’m a little embarrassed to say that I’m struggling to see it your way – and I promise I’m trying. Perhaps it’s like when I first encountered the Monty Hall problem in logic class, being entirely certain that my (intuitive) view was right, unable to accept the short-form version of the explanation – only to later have my professor long-form prove it to me that I was dead wrong.
I was listening to Dr Goodacre’s NT Pod the other day, when he discussed how, back when he was doing a lot of work on the synoptic problem, that he was quite personally friendly with the very passionate folks in the Griesbachian school, despite their sharply different perspectives. Your passion for this is palpable, my friend.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)