In his most recent blog post
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Prof Ehrman announces an upcoming online debate between Profs Mark Goodacre (no) and John Kloppenborg (yes) on this question. Prof Ehrman gives a nice short description of “Q” and what it is so if by chance someone reading this is not familiar with this issue, then by all means read the announcement. I will proceed under the assumption that anyone reading this at least understands why this is such an important issue for scholars of the NT and specifically the so-called “Synoptic Problem”.
From the point of view of this here layman non-specialist this argument, as important as it is textually, almost always misses the point. At least the point as I take it. So…
1. What are we actually arguing about?
Well the terms of the debate are always framed as “Did ‘Q’ exist?” But what they really mean is, “Did ‘Q’ exist as a separate document?” The material certainly exists regardless. What I’m more interested in than whether or not it existed as a separate text is, where the heck did it come from? Does it go back to Jesus? Even if it isn’t verbatim does it accurately record the teachings of the historical Jesus? Whether or not the material existed as a document, it came from somewhere.
But that’s not even the foundational argument which I take to be, “Were Matthew and Luke composed independently?” If they were then something like “Q” must have existed. If not, then “Q” may or may not have existed. Prof Goodacre has spent a great deal of effort arguing that Luke was dependent on both Mark and Matthew. Therefore for him it follows that “‘Q’ is simply superfluous. But…
2. If Luke is dependent on Matthew does that necessarily mean the “Q” material did not exist as a separate text?
This is the question that seems to never get raised in these debates. If Luke knew Matthew, no “Q”? Perhaps merely asking this question is a function of my own ignorance but I haven’t been worried too much about appearing ignorant in public for a long while so here goes.
One factor I see in the discussions is the assumption that even if Luke knew Matthew he still must have had Mark in front of him in order to use Mark’s text in the way that Luke did. So Luke could not have only had Matthew. He must have had Mark as well.
So my question is this.
Could Luke have used the non-Markan material in Matthew the way that he did without having some sort of “control” text containing what has come to be called “Q” in the same way he had Mark as a control text for the way Matthew used Mark?
Ps: Just to clarify this is a non-rhetorical question. Has anyone thought along these lines?
Addendum: Another question that might help to clarify my thinking is this: If Mark’s gospel had not survived (easily possible given the popularity of Matthew) and all we had were Matthew and Luke, could we determine textually from Matthew and Luke that they were dependent on another gospel or would we simply assume that one used the other? Since “Q”, if it existed, did not survive, can we ask the same question?
I think about this nearly every day.
Good. I got burned out on the “Synoptic Problem” at some point but reading Goodacre’s book on John has brought me back. I find some of your comments encouraging.
Especially if Luke were written later, or later revised in a second edition…
Speculative but there is a reasonable scenario I think. First, an early proto-Luke, beginning with chpt 3, adoptionist in tone, closely mirroring Mark. Then, later, perhaps much later, an expanded version written as a direct response to Matthew. (Version 2 perhaps not by the same person?) This would account for the tensions within Luke and without towards Matthew. How you could prove this I have no idea. Other than it does no violence to the text.
There are consequences to every view. If no “Q” there would be only Mark and non-Mark. No Matthean special sources. Yet this is such lovely material. Why would Luke leave it out? (But then why does John leave out the Transfiguration? That would seem to be right in his wheelhouse.)
I sure Matthew invented stuff just like Mark. But a sayings gospel of some sort as a source seems reasonable.
Ehrman introduced me to an observation that, I think, demands that Q be an actual document.
If you compare the order of double tradition material in Matthew and Luke, Matthew groups it together into blocks (like the sermon on the mount), but within each block, the individual sayings appear in the same relative order as they appear in Luke.
So if Luke gives us something like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . . .
Matthew gives us: [sermon 1] 1, 3, 6 . . .; [sermon 2] 2,5,7 . . .; [sermon 4] 4, 8, 10 . . .
That seems like a pretty striking coincidence. It is easy to explain if they were both using the same written source, but is very hard to explain if we presume Luke got the material from Matthew.
Or perhaps the simplest explanation of that particular phenomenon is if Matthew was based on a proto-Luke.
…if Matthew was based on a proto-Luke.
Well I like my own hypothesis/speculation/fancy better, that proto-Luke was revised in response to Matthew, adding Nativity to shift from an Adoptionist to an Incarnational approach (without smoothening out all the tensions caused by that shift). But if at this late date we are still arguing about order of composition then we must accept that there are things we’ll never know. Markan priority seems fairly well assured but perhaps everything else is up for grabs.
I have to say I find increasingly provocative Robyn Faith Walsh’s suggestion that instead of communities producing the gospels, communities formed around the gospels. At the risk of oversimplifying, the church didn’t produce the gospels, the gospels produced the church.
So let’s question the idea of Mark being composed around the First Revolt; Matthew and Luke composed 15 or 20 years later; John late in the century.
How late could these texts have been composed based on what we know? Could all the gospels have been composed in the second century? Brent Nongbri has been seriously critiquing the early composition dates of those fragments we have that are generally brought out to support first century provenance of the gospels.
The advantage of the ‘oral community gospel tradition’ viewpoint is that it is a way to connect the texts back to the historical community close to Jesus. Otherwise we have Paul and then looong blank spaces during which gospels of unknown provenance appear.
I think we’re going through a much needed time of questioning. Funny how the old verities become doubtful over time. I was being educated when the idea of the Johannine Community was at its height. It made so much sense. Less so now. But it was a way of explaining our sources. Which is what Goodacre, et al are trying to do.
I agree that Mark seems caught up in the frenzy of the First Revolt. If it’s being composed a long time after why present an association between the fate of the Temple and the Parousia?
As far as “Q” I wonder why material that seems so fundamental to the Jesus tradition would be unknown to Mark? Could he find no use for all those sayings? And if he did not know the material what does that say about the early development of the church? But Paul was determined to know nothing but Jesus crucified. And Mark has been described as a Passion narrative with an extended introduction.
Yes, familiar with “the Q source” or “one or more of the Q sources” … because “everyone knows that stuff” … “in addition to the teachings of Yeshu’ that you are all familiar with, I do want to reiterate why learning those teachings is so important and why you should respect Yeshu’ as a teacher.”
I mean, the destruction of the temple is a crisis point for temple-oriented Judean religious traditions, but provided that teachings passed on from Yeshu’ include something that can be seen as foreshadowing the destruction of the Temple, the fact that the destruction happened at roughly four decades after the crucifixion of Yeshu’ is a tremendous opportunity for the teachings of Yeshu’. As with 12 tribes of the Excodus wandering 40 years in the wilderness, the first generation of sowers of the seed have passed away, and now that the prophecy of the destruction of the Temple has been fulfilled, that is the proof of Yeshu’s status as a true prophet, and now armed with that proof, the new generation may now work toward the harvest of the seeds that will surely take place before the second generation will pass away.
“Oh, you doubters, this proves we were right all along.”
I mean, recall the parables that are in all the synoptics along with Thomas:
The Parables of the New and the Old
The Parable of the Sower
The Parable of the Mustard Seed
The Parable of the Wicked Tenants
The Evangelion is a new Wineskin for new Wine, a new Patch for new Clothes. Why be concerned when this seed falls on barren soil or shallow soil … it will also fall on fruitful soil, and yield a great harvest. This seed may be small, but it will yield a large plant. And if the tenants refusing to respect the lord’s servants even kill the lord’s heir, what do you think will happen when the lord himself comes … which was an open question at the time of the Prophet Yeshu’s teaching, but we have just received a taste of that wrath in the destruction of the Temple.
And the Parable from Mark but not the other synoptics, the Growing Seed:
God’s Kingdom is as if a man should cast seed on the earth, and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should spring up and grow, though he doesn’t know how. For the earth bears fruit by itself: first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the fruit is ripe, immediately he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come. Mark4:26-29
“The harvest has come.”
The author might have very much valued the teachings of Jesus contained in Q as understood and lived within his community, without however needing to reproduce much of it in this new document pertaining to the relevance of Jesus in 70 CE, the spread of the gospel message to the ends of the earth before the imminent return of Jesus.
Which as I suggested might have been the case with Paul who explicitly says he intends to focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus. But it’s also probably unnecessary to suppose that all Christian communities had access to all available traditions. It’s entirely possible all Mark had were credos and a frame story and his gospel is a creative composition based on the LXX. I suspect very few of the details of Mark’s narrative can be traced back to historical events.
On the other hand some of the ‘Q’ material and what have come to be called Matthew’s “special sources” seem rather primitive and may preserve real memories. While we’re questioning assumptions we should reconsider the idea that just because Mark is the earliest gospel that he is closer in some way to the historical Jesus.
Yes. It’s important to bear in mind that when we say “oral tradition”, much of that may be liturgy, things memorized to present when believers assemble for the love feast. One can presume an original anchor in the immediate recollections of events while still observing that forty years later, some things will have grown in the retelling and some things will be forgotten.
Some have characterized Mark as a Passion narrative with a long preamble. Given Sunday morning meetings being meetings before the work day begins, and the length of meeting which that implies, one can imagine an Easter Sunday liturgy that concludes the Passion narrative of the previous month with a reading of the 22nd Psalm, and it’s ringing “He has done it!” at the end, so that the dramatically abrupt and incomplete feeling ending of the Mark we have received is not felt as incomplete by those who originally received it, but they rather know to roll up the scroll and sing the 22nd Psalm to get the familiar feeling of their annual Passion liturgy.
In April DeConick’s rolling corpus model of the evolution of our received Gospel of Thomas, the kernel upon which our received Gospel of Thomas started forming were five speeches presenting teachings of Jesus. But five speeches is just a month of Sundays (more or less) … when “Mark” has the inspiration to compose a written Evangelion, in two acts, climaxed respectively by the Transfiguration and Resurrection, he may well draw on liturgical tradition (oral or written or a mix of both) without feeling the need to archive the entirety of a year’s worth of liturgy, simply because his intent is to deliver the good news, rather than to archive liturgy.
(cf. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
And four decades is a long time for a liturgical tradition to evolve, including amplifying high points in the narrative that are especially effective.
Note that a liturgical anchor in the later first century CE for much of what is composed in “Mark” would (NB. not “does” until/unless compelling evidence is presented) account for Mark’s survival into the canon despite a laundry list of inconveniences for 2nd and 3rd century proto-orthodox strand(s) of the faith. Faith communities can be dogged about their traditional liturgies.
…when “Mark” has the inspiration to compose a written Evangelion, in two acts, climaxed respectively by the Transfiguration and Resurrection…
I would just clarify that I see the Transfiguration as less of an Act one climax than as the centerpiece of the entire text. It creates a balance between the Baptism and the Resurrection. I think it’s helpful to see Mark as in some ways a transitional text. It captures a viewpoint that replaced an earlier view and was itself replaced by later views. The earliest view of the Resurrection was that Jesus was made divine Son of God at his Resurrection. (Rom 1:4) The later view was that Jesus was divine from birth.
We can also see this transitional phase at the Empty Tomb. Mark forgoes actual resurrection appearances, retaining a belief in some sort of apotheosis, but includes the Empty Tomb which would seem unnecessary if you don’t have an actual physical resurrection. (I would suggest that for Mark the Empty Tomb functions as an aniconic (nonrepresentative) image of the Resurrection, no “appearances” required. This also makes sense of an ending at 16:8.)
…a liturgical anchor in the later first century CE…
I agree it makes sense that what was passed on in the early church were not oral stories but credos and liturgies. The gospels serve to “fill in the blanks”, so to speak. Their narratives provide context.
I think Mark’s empty tomb was intended literally, he is not here, because he has been raised up to heaven, not unke Paul’s view of the resurrection, not unlike Enoch, as illustrated also by Mark at the Transfiguration with the figures of Moses & Elijah, and from which he will come again (cf 14,62).
Well for “literally” I would substitute intended “concretely”. At this point nothing would surprise me less than to find out that the Empty Tomb, like the Transfiguration and even the Baptism, were Markan literary inventions. (I also think its cool the way he mythologizes Lake Kinneret into the Sea of Galilee early on.)
I don’t claim any access to Mark’s “intentions”. I would merely say that the Empty Tomb can be interpreted aniconically. How better to depict the state of being “not dead’ than with an Empty Tomb? It also has the virtue of allowing Mark to defer appearances until some future time (the Parousia?) and helps explain an ending at 16:8.
I’ve mentioned this before but I dearly wish I had the wherewithal, meaning talent and money, to make a film out of the gospel of Mark, following the text as closely as possible. It would instantly become the most controversial Jesus movie ever made. Audiences are used to movies that blend all the gospels together smoothing out the rough spots. The “fifth gospel” Prof Ehrman talks about. I would accentuate Mark’s weirdness rather than mask it. No need to exaggerate it!
Stephen said
…when “Mark” has the inspiration to compose a written Evangelion, in two acts, climaxed respectively by the Transfiguration and Resurrection…
I would just clarify that I see the Transfiguration as less of an Act one climax than as the centerpiece of the entire text. It creates a balance between the Baptism and the Resurrection. I think it’s helpful to see Mark as in some ways a transitional text. It captures a viewpoint that replaced an earlier view and was itself replaced by later views. The earliest view of the Resurrection was that Jesus was made divine Son of God at his Resurrection. (Rom 1:4) The later view was that Jesus was divine from birth.
Especially if one views the “Son of God” in verse 1, which is not present in all of the earliest manuscripts, as a later interpolation, it lines up with an Adoptionist Christology resting on the baptism — “you are my son” as it being spoken into being rather than as a confirmation of an existing status — as the adoption would have to be completed prior to the Transfiguration, so a “late” Adoptionist Christology on the Resurrection would not be supported.
I can’t read Greek, but Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint has the Psalm of the Cross version of the modern 22nd Psalm, which appears to be agnostic on the question if read by an Adoptionist:
Ps22:1 -> Mk 15:34
Ps22:6&16 -> Mk 15:16-20
Ps22:7-8 -> Mk 15:31-32
Ps22:18 -> Mk 15:24
… are among the more striking parallels, but for an Adoptionist Christology, Ps22:19-31 can be read as an ascent to the divine assembly.
However, reading that Psalm as the coda of the Markan narrative cannot be pressed into service for any Christology higher than Arianism, so dogged insistence by Churches such as Alexandria on “their founder” being respected in the Canon would have been after any such hypothetical baptismal Adoptionism had long since faded away.
But even more, once 80 years have passed since the Crucifixion, it might be more and more embarrassing to lean heavily on the Psalm of the Cross, given (Brenton’s translation):
Ps21:30: “And my seed shall serve him: the generation that is coming shall be reported to the Lord.”
Apologetically, this could be wonderful cope for the first generation passing away and then the destruction of the Temple being the toll of the bell for the start of the final generation. But once it’s been interpreted that way, that simply restarts the countdown to the end of days, it doesn’t put it on an indefinite pause.
…
We can also see this transitional phase at the Empty Tomb. Mark forgoes actual resurrection appearances, retaining a belief in some sort of apotheosis, but includes the Empty Tomb which would seem unnecessary if you don’t have an actual physical resurrection. (I would suggest that for Mark the Empty Tomb functions as an aniconic (nonrepresentative) image of the Resurrection, no “appearances” required. This also makes sense of an ending at 16:8.) …
I’m with Robert on this. Without reading Matthew or Luke first (eg, they haven’t been written yet), to someone who is a “God fearer” and has at the very least access to the Septuagint, the scene itself strikes as similar to Enoch, and it’s the parable of the Tenants plus the (at least) two recognitions of Jesus as the son of God that point toward more than just ascending to the divine assembly but, given the more exalted status, ascending to the “right hand of God”.
Indeed, note that without the recognitions, the Parable of the Tenants would be compatible with Jesus being the final prophet and the Son of the landlord being on his way next. But the destruction of the Temple … nope, the landlord is clearly on his way, so that last one, that the “Tenants” killed, must have been the son.
In the possibility that Dr. Ehrman has noted, if the version of Verse 1 with the attestation of Jesus as the son of God at the outset is an interpolation …
… well, then it is one which may reframe the Christology of Mark, as with Jesus known to be Son of God by the reader at the outset, the voice at the baptism is not speaking a new status into being, but confirming an existing status.
I agree that Mark is best read as Adoptionist. One detail that supports this approach and I was late in noticing is at the very beginning of the gospel.
So John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And the whole Judean region and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him and were baptized by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins. Mrk 1, 4-5 NRSVUE
and then,
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Mrk 1, 9 NRSVUE
Isn’t the implication here that, like everyone else, Jesus confessed his sins and was baptized?
This idea clearly bothered Matthew.
Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.
Luke does not have this waffling over Jesus’ baptism but contains a variant reading that hints that it might have originally had an Adoptionist viewpoint itself.
Now when all the people were baptized and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”Lke 3, 21-22 NRSVUE
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)