Grrr. . .in a hurry and not paying attention–I neglected to get to your question regarding identifying things that aren’t in keeping with Luke’s theology, and only responded to Goulder’s assessment.
A thorough discussion on the matter would span a book (two volumes, actually, Michael Goulder’s Luke: A New Paradigm), but in a nutshell it amounts to a Lukan tendency to avoid Mosaic parallels (which Matthew’s entire gospel is–right down to five discourses for the five books of the Torah), to avoid obvious Hebraisms, and to avoid Jewish symbolism in general, though there is a case to be made that he sympathizes with Abrahamic symbols (not one I find persuasive, but a case to be made nonetheless).
There’s good reason for him to avoid most of matthew’s distinctively Matthean style. It’s curious that he seems to use it at all, if he’s not familiar with Matthew–it’s tough to reconcile those ends.
Just FYI, I’ll shortly begin working on a paper on Deuteronistic symbolism in Acts (in response to Kloppenborg’s argument), as well as the use of Sophia in Act.6-7. Should I manage to rebut those, I’ll have managed to persuade myself solidly against Q (The Lot Cycle argument isn’t terribly strong–it requires a non-paralleled verse in Luke to be regarded as a Q saying, which requires an a priori acceptance of Q–Q exists because Q has these characteristics, one of which it has because Q exists).
My paper, once complete will be submitted to the Synoptic-L rather than here, to see how well it stands up to academic scrutiny (that and I’m not about to share copyright with the Straight Dope Messageboard, should it hold up well. . .gotta keep an eye on those disclaimers ). Keep an eye out.
Iscariot: I’m greatly enjoying your erudite contributions to the discussion. I hope you’ll stick around and continue to enrich the knowlege base here. Even though you’ll be gone, I’ll get some more thoughts down and hope the thread can be revived when you return.
Virgin birth: If Luke did have a copy of Matthew, why does he depart so much from Matt’s story? Why is there no single verse with the kind of verbatim agreement we find with Mark? A much more likely source is oral tradition, IMO.
But midrash has been an essential part of Christian thought for a long time at the time of Mark’s writing. Mark’s whole Passion narrative is full of it. As Crossan points out in The Beginnings of Christianity, Barnabas seems to give us an earlier version of the Passion which is clearly midrashic. If Kloppenborg is right about the stages of composition of Q (on which I remain agnostic), then the temptation story was composed by a different author.
The Popperian argument is pretty weak. The same objection can be raised against the Farrer/Goulder hypothesis. History is not scientific in the same way as, say, physics (my field, BTW). You can’t do an experiment to falsify a theory. You can only look for an explanation that fits with the data you have in hand. (Unless you get really lucky and find a new papyrus in some garbage heap in Egypt.)
That said, I have to admit that the minor agreements are a problem for Q. Which is why I find the whole discussion so fascinating.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Why would “late” Papias not know of a written gospel?
Why is this obviously wrong? My impression was that some commentators at least accept the possibility that Mark was a follower of Peter.
Perhaps because it had already been replaced by the more exciting narrative gospels? At first, Christians weren’t much interested in recording and passing on Jesus’s sayings. Paul is proof of that. When the Parousia failed to occur in a timely fashion, and Christianity spread to places where eyewitnesses weren’t on hand, interest in the “historical Jesus” grew. Mark’s gospel was the first to tell the story in a reader-friendly way. You have to remember we’re talking about religious fanatics, not historical scholars. As far as they were concerned, the canonical gospel were authentic, and dramatic, and exciting, whereas a simple list of sayings was much less interesting.
Well, there’s Brian Wilson, who was linked from the NT Gateway site. Hulmut Koester, certainly no slouch of a scholar, says something similar in Intro. to the NT, vol. 2, p.177.
I didn’t say it was “false” that scholars don’t think the Logia was Q, I said itwas disingenuous to claim that no scholar thinks there could have been a relationship. No scholar thinks that Q is a direct translation from Hebrew but at least a few have postulated that the Logia could have been a prototype for a Greek Q.
If nothing else, the Eusebius/Papias reference shows that somebody thought an apostolic sayings gospel had existed at some point.
I will admit that Iscariot has a point about the temptation and will further conceed that an interpolative explanation seems ad hoc and a priori (although not unreasonable IMO). I think the Virgin Birth could easily be an oral tradition, though. It was a pretty commonplace mythological motif in the ancient world. I agree with FriendRob that it doesn’t seem to jibe that Luke would take only the Virgin Birth from Matthew’s nativity while ignoring, or even contradicting everything else.
Having reviewed some of Iscariot’s linked material more thoroughly I am now prepared to concede that I reacted in a knee-jerk defensive manner to what he was saying.
There are some good reasons to consider a Lucan dependence on Matthew rather than Q. I was particularly impressed by this article by Goodacre: Fatigue in the Synoptics.
I’ve been somewhat biased and closed-minded in my assumptions so I apologize to Iscariot.
Plans always seem to fall apart at the last minute, when it’s least convenient. . .
At any rate:
Are we in agreement that Matthew made up the virgin birth, and that Luke’s story must have derived from it? My response will be colored by where we stand on that, so I’ll hold off on elaborating for the time being, except to note that Luke doesn’t have a lot of use for a birth narrative so obviously dependent on the birth of Moses and subsequent Exodus–the only thing really puzzling is Luke’s omission of the gentile Magi–but with no “slaughter of the innocents,” he may have simply been unable to find a way to work them in.
It’s not one generally used by Q. Why has Q used it in this instance, and in this instance alone, and in a manner out of touch with the rest of Q’s material?
Why does that different author not have a similar technique throughout the rest of “Q3”?
Midrash isn’t out of keeping with Mark’s Gospel (his passion is probably the most brilliant use of it ever, and should certainly count Mark among the greatest literary geniuses of all time), nor is it for Barnabas. It is for Q.
Just BTW, I’m not persuaded by Crossan, nor for that matter by Brown, that there was any pre-Markan Passion tradition. The only exceptions I would have to that are that Jesus died on a Roman cross, under the charge “The King of the Jews,” and that Simon of Cyrene helped him with his cross (Mark provides a detailed identification of Simon–could just be color, but it seems more likely that he’s identifying Simon for his readers–“Don’t believe me, ask him yourself.”).
Call it a “Passion Narrative” or the extra spiffy “Cross Gospel,” it doesn’t matter to me either way, I’m persuaded by Mack’s apt observation in Myth of Innocence–Mark had a lot of sources around, what he didn’t have was a Passion Narrative, because there wasn’t one until he wrote it.
There needs to be a point at which we conclude that it no longer fits the data, however. That point, as Goulder notes, used to be the Passion. Now the goalposts seem to have moved, with no explanation being given as to why.
Goodacre’s fatigue be damned–the minor agreements are easily the biggest problem for Q.
As Papias gets later, his accuracy regarding early traditions becomes increasingly suspect.
It’s curious that a disciple of Peter would redact the denial into his text. It’s curious that a disciple of Peter would wish to debase him–which Mark does more than any other gospel.
Yet isn’t the principle behind Q that they were interested in doing exactly that? That the focus of the earliest Christians was the teachings of Jesus, which they recorded, with contexts added to those teachings later?
Why does Thomas survive? And why did it clearly enjoy such pride?
[QUOTE]
Paul is proof of that.
[QUOTE]
Paul had no interest in narratives either, so he’s not going to serve well for an example of why we would expect a narrative gospel to be favored over a sayings gospel.
(We do well, at least for these purposes, not to chase this one too far–there’s a curious silence spanning an incredible array of work. Earl Doherty takes this to the extreme–I’m not persuaded by his arguments, but they’re interesting food for thought. Should you peruse him, read the book, skip the invective-filled website.)
[QUOTE]
When the Parousia failed to occur in a timely fashion, and Christianity spread to places where eyewitnesses weren’t on hand, interest in the “historical Jesus” grew. Mark’s gospel was the first to tell the story in a reader-friendly way.
[QUOTE]
Yet narrative gospels like Mark’s do not ever appear to have made up the majority of Christian writings.
Yet we have a number of writings that predate even the most rudimentary of canons–I’d suggest 2 Peter is the first source that evidences that such a thing had developed (depending on where one likes to date 2 Peter). None of them had any interest in Q.
And plenty of religious fanatics thoroughly enjoyed sayings gospels. They preserved one for three hundred years or so. Oxy 1224 appears to be another one. Some have suggested that the Traditions of Matthias is yet another, though this of course is wholly speculative.
Brian Wilson passed away in 2002, and thus doesn’t really falsify Goodacre’s claim, but nonetheless, he still isn’t equating it with Q, at least as Q is being presented here–the 2SH.
In Wilson’s reconstruction, Luke didn’t know Matthew or Mark, the synoptics are all relatively independent.
I’d be grateful if you could provide a citation from Koester–I don’t have the book and can’t be sure when I’ll get in to the library.
In the meantime, I’ll suggest the following reason to be suspect of Papias, and will elaborate further after some reading:
We can reasonably conclude that Papias has never seen either the “Logia” or the “Mark” he refers to. If he had, he’d have cited it, and Eusebius would scarcely miss the opportunity to employ such early witness. Further, if he’d read them, or had them in his possession, it’s difficult to imagine why he would continue to favor oral tradition as the more accurate.
He is, at best, relating things second hand, not discussing any texts he’s seen. His reliability as a witness is thus inherently suspect.
Equally importantly, the “Logia” would be a much better description of Thomas than it would of Q. If we skip reading our Matthew into Papias’ Matthew, there’s really no reason to favor any link to the synoptics.
Once upon a time I started an E-list, intended to be for semi-academic discussion of the historical Jesus. In wanders Peter Kirby.
Kirby promptly questioned hypothesis I’d taken prima facie for so long, that I was startled to see anyone who questioned them, and promptly decided that everyone who did so was inherently wrong. Rather than read the information Kirby suggested, I launched an assault on the alternative theories–issues such as the existence of Q, the relationship of Thomas to the NT, or the relative dependence of John and the Synoptics. Rather than concede my lack of familiarity with converse positions, I attempted to “bluff my way through,” citing arguments–as I condemned above–by rote and not by reason.
Further perusal has taught me a valuable lesson–just because a theory isn’t mainstream, doesn’t make it false, and many arguments deserving serious consideration are dismissed because people–from layman through to academics–do exactly what I’d done–they plot rebuttals before they read the arguments, they put conclusions before the evidence.
The moral of the story is that your apology is, of course, accepted and reciprocated for being too harsh. I don’t think anyone comes to the table in any discussion of early Christianity without some level of bias. Indeed, that bias, and the passion and contentiousness it inspires, is the reason I want to do what I want to do.
But the Logia argument, as originally presented, was a basis for Q. If Papias was not referring to Q as Matthew knew it, then that cornerstone becomes shaky at best.
Even Sanders, with all his emphasis on the acts of Jesus, is forced to concede that sayings are what likely survived best.
But why couldn’t an apostolic sayings gospel have been Thomas? Or Matthias? Or any one of a half dozen gospels we know we’ve lost, and probably scores that are completely forgotten?
“Interpolation” can only be chanted so many times though. How many interpolations do we need before it crumbles?
What parts of Matthew’s nativity would you suggest Luke should have used?
Why would contradiction be a problem unless he expected his gospel to be read with Matthew’s? If he expected his audience to have Matthew’s gospel, there would be no need for him to write another one.
They don’t contradict if he doesn’t give his audience that point of comparison.
I never intended to imply that I thought the Logia was a direct basis for Q, only that some written sayings compilations may have existed and that Q could have been a Greek redaction of a (possibly) Hebrew or Aramaic sayings Gospel. Admittedly this is rather weak beer for those searching for any mention of a Q-type Greek sayings gospel in ancient sources. It’s speculative at best, however, I’m still not convinced that a lack of ancient corroboration for such a text is dispositive evidence that it didn’t exist.
It could have been, that’s my point. We don’t know what was lost.
I agree, and I’m starting to come around a little bit. At this point I’m going to back down from my prior confident assertions for Q pending some more reading and contemplation. I’m not ready to chuck Q out just yet but I am going to study the matter some more. I confess to having long held an attitude that alternate theories were untenable and not worth my time, a position I now realize has been needlessly supercillious and unscholarly.
The slaughter of the innocents and the flight to Egypt would seem somewhat significant, so if Luke was aware of Matthew and chose not to use these elements then he must have regarded them as ahistorical Mosaic comparisons. But if he thought the Mosaic elements were ahistorical, why did he keep the Davidic birth in Bethlehem? Why did he change Matthew’s geneology?
Actually, now that I think about it, the birth in Bethlem may be a point in favor of Matthean dependency. Why else would Luke include it since the Jewish-political reasons for such a placement were not that important to Luke. The birth in Bethlehem is not part of Q so how else would Luke have known about it if not for Matthew? Hmmm…food for thought.
To me it’s more a question of how Luke decided what parts of matthew were authoritative or “true” and what wasn’t. He takes Matt’s word that Jesus was born in Bethlehem but changes the geneology. By what process did Luke decide what to believe and not to believe?
On an unrelated note to Iscariot:
Your mention of Peter Kirby makes me wonder if you align yourself with the current “mythicist” school of historical Jesus scholarship. What is your take on the views of Kirby, Earl Doherty and others who argue that no historical Jesus ever existed?
I’ve pretty much been in the minimalist, Jesus-as-wisdom-teacher camp typified by people like Crossan and Funk and I initially had misgivings about the mythicist movement. I read Doherty’s Jesus Puzzle and found that it wasn’t as easily dismissable as I had thought.
In a debate on another board with a mythcist, I found it was rather difficult to really make a definitive case for historical Jesus beyond the usual Tacitus/Josephus and common sayings arguments.
What is your personal position on the historicity question?
I’m on my way out the door, so don’t have the time to get to the rest of your post right this second, but will later. I’ll address this now, however, as it’s–as you note–unrelated.
Peter is no longer a mythicist, accepting both the historicity of Jesus and the Pauline references to his life as meaning exactly what they say (unless, of course, he’s changed his mind again).
Doherty’s argument is interesting, and has been unforgivably ignored and unappreciated. (Though, I suppose, it’s almost understandable why that happens–most mythicist arguments are agenda driven crap.) I don’t think he’s correct, I do think he deserves more investigation. (Note to other readers: Read the book, skip the website).
Every time I read Doherty’s book (which I’ve done several times), I plot out a hundred rebuttals to every argument he presents–hell, I plot them out in advance in some cases–and it’s never until I get to the end, and reflect on the cumulative power of his arguments, that I realize with some embarassment that I’ve approached his work like an apologist incapable of forgetting that I know how the story ends. Every time I get to the end I ask the same question: “Damn it, could he be right?”
Doherty presents a hell of an argument–the mythicist position is beyond “possible” and well into the realm of “plausible.” I just don’t think it’s most plausible.
They’re startlingly persuasive, no?
I think Josephus and Paul provide an adequate case for most investigations–they both knew James, and knew him as his brother. It’s justifiable to accept historicity on those grounds, and move on to other issues.
But when one is devoted to making historicity itself the issue, it’s a much different story. I think some of Doherty’s translations in the Pauline epistles are specious, and his argument from silence doesn’t hold up very well (Kirby, actually, assembled an excellent collection of excerpts from letters of Mark Twain(? I think it was Twain. . .) that do exactly what Paul’s epistles do, yet we know Twain accepted an historical Jesus), and I think he’s sometimes guilty of jumping at shadows–overstating his case a bit, or finding evidence that “indicates” ahistoricity but doesn’t indicate anything one way or the other, but in the main, it’s at the very least perfectly reasonable to conclude that there was no man behind the magic curtain.
The problem with most mythicist positions is that they’re agenda driven nonsense–sticking one’s fingers in their ears and chanting “No evidence!” Doherty’s case is strong because it’s exactly the opposite of that–Doherty thinks there’s great gobs of evidence. More than he knows what to do with. And every bit of it indicates that Jesus was always a myth.
I’ve actually registered ahistoricity.com (though the damned Canadian banks take forever with paypal), which I’ll use to host ten articles or so I’ve written, or am in the process of writing, against Doherty, as well as seek contributions from others on arguments for and against the mythicist position.
It isn’t fatal to it, by any means, but taken cumulatively, it is puzzling.
I’m indebited to E P Sanders’ essay in “Jesus 2000 Years Later” (Ed. J H Charlesworth and Walter P Weaver) for the following observation:
Herodotus, in the first book of his Histories, has a narrative regarding Solon and Croesus. It’s a beautiful, edifying piece of literature, that speaks volumes to both the ancient and contemporary reader–really a brilliant piece, and it’s a shame that it has no basis in reality.
Herodotus, who was writing a much more historically motivated text than either Luke or Matthew, doubtlessly had a great many sources around. Given his accuracy on some details, he doubtlessly had many sources about Solon and Croesus. So why did he ignore those sources, which surely must have told him that Solon and Croesus lived decades apart, and probably never met?
How much moreso would Luke, using Mark for historicity, and Matthew for literarature, writing for such different reasons than Herodotus, be inclined to ignore the latter in favor of a more edifying piece? In favor of a piece that spoke better to his own audience?
Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy through the line of kings, because to Matthew, Jesus is the greatest king of all. Luke would have reasonably been able to discern that Matthew had made the genealogy up, particularly when one considers that Luke’s other source–the one he would have considered more authoritative–has never heard of such a lineage, and offers a questionable apologetic in its stead (Mk.12.35-37).
To Luke, Jesus is more of a prophet–he doesn’t have a lot of use for a Jewish king to present to his Gentile audience. Thus Luke traces his genealogy through the prophets instead; it spoke better to his audience.
I forgot to mention in addition to this yesterday, that I feel the criteria of embarassment makes a better case than the common sayings. Doherty addresses two uses of embarassment–the Baptism and the Denial. In the former, his argument is relatively weak–it seems to me that it’s more reasonable to conclude that the baptismal narrative is included because it’s an actual event, the latter isn’t generally used with embarassment anymore, though there are still straggling exceptions.
A better example than either of these is that Mark and John are apparently unaware of a birth in Bethlehem, and Mark, John and Barnabas are apparently unaware of a Davidic birth (Mk.12.35-37, Jn.7.42, Barn.12.10). They all clearly knew this latter was a problem, and John was clearly aware that a Galilean birth was problematic (7.42 again), yet they all include it anyway.
Are we to presume that early Christians simply decided to make problems for themselves by making a non-Davidic Galilean Messiah up wholesale? I’ve never seen a good rebuttal to this.
The premise is simple: If nobody would make it up, that makes it true.
That makes sense as to why Luke would change the geneology, but why would he take such pains to keep Bethlehem in the Nativity? He even goes so far as to conflate and distort an anachronistic census to justify the presence of Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem (thus showing an awareness of a Galilean association for Jesus in popular tradition). Like you said, Luke was not much concerned with making a Jewish political argument for Jesus as the heir to David (i.e. the Jewish “Messiah”) and apparently he did not regard Matthew as historically reliable, yet he goes out of his way to concoct an implausible device to get the Nativity to Bethlehem.
What have you read which would explain why Luke cared about placing the birth in Bethlehem?
Truthfully, the more I think about this, the more puzzling it is. It’s not part of Q and it’s unknown to Mark and John. As a matter of fact, Jesus’ Galilean origin is seen as a problem in John (Jn. 7:41-43). Since John was a fairly late gospel, the birth in Bethlehem must not have had much, if any currency in oral tradition. Luke had to have gotten Bethlehem either from Matthew or from his own so-called “Lukan” material which is a mystery in itself.
I will continue to consider this idea of discarding Q. It’s not so terrible now that I’ve opened my mind to it a little bit. It makes me wonder why I was so married to it in the first place.
I forgot to mention in addition to this yesterday, that I feel the criteria of embarassment makes a better case than the common sayings. Doherty addresses two uses of embarassment–the Baptism and the Denial. In the former, his argument is relatively weak–it seems to me that it’s more reasonable to conclude that the baptismal narrative is included because it’s an actual event, the latter isn’t generally used with embarassment anymore, though there are still straggling exceptions.
A better example than either of these is that Mark and John are apparently unaware of a birth in Bethlehem, and Mark, John and Barnabas are apparently unaware of a Davidic birth (Mk.12.35-37, Jn.7.42, Barn.12.10). They all clearly knew this latter was a problem, and John was clearly aware that a Galilean birth was problematic (7.42 again), yet they all include it anyway.
Are we to presume that early Christians simply decided to make problems for themselves by making a non-Davidic Galilean Messiah up wholesale? I’ve never seen a good rebuttal to this.
The premise is simple: If nobody would make it up, that makes it true.
I agree, both with the baptism and the Galilean birth. I would also had a personal feeling that the name Yeshua in itself is so mundane and ordinary as to defy a purely mythical ascription. Why invent a Divine Redeemer, an incarnation of God, and then give him a name which is essentially the equivalent of “Dave” or 'Joe?"
Matthew even dredges up the “Emmanuel” quotation from Isaiah. If such an association was going to made for Christ, why not use that name?
I don’t see that the conclusion follows from the premises. If Luke “was doing the same thing” (i.e., making changes to suit his purpose), why is it safe to assume that he would prefer Markan order simply on the grounds of Markan priority? Luke, after all, was a marketer of sorts. And in such matters, priority often takes a back seat to currency (in both senses of the term – time and popularity).
I’ll have to take much more time to read all of the postings and their references more thoroughly – I’ll have the chance this weekend when we have a Good Friday holiday – but is it being assumed here that Q was a single written source? Or are allowances made for the possibility that more than one common source may have been referenced, and if so that some oral traditions were shared? Or is that out of scope here?
There is too much agreement for there to be a shared oral tradition (the commonalities are word for word the same. You would not get such precise agreement in Greek from oral traditions which originated in Aramaic).
I have never heard a theory of multiple non-Marcan sources and I think that such a hypothesis probably amounts to an unnecessary multiplication of entia at this point.
No, I’m suggesting that there was an oral tradition that included the virgin birth, and Mt and Lk both made use of it. I don’t see any evidence that Lk knew of Mt’s version. The Moses theme is the clearest sign of Mt’s redaction in the birth story, because it’s continued throughout the gospel. But the Moses theme is completely missing from Lk’s version. You seem to be claiming that Lk used Mt’s gospel, but carefully edited out everything that made it Matthean. That’s not how redaction analysis works. You only conclude there’s dependence when there’s clear literary DNA evidence of a link.
That’s a good point, but Mark is pretty harsh on all the disciples. They all seem rather dim-witted, not catching on to who Jesus really is. Should we conclude that Mark’s community didn’t identify with any of the disciples?
But there are lots of other early writings that don’t get mentioned by anyone else. What about the “Signs source” that John used? Or Crossan’s “Cross gospel”? Whether you agree with their precise content or not, it seems certain that some kind of document was used in both cases. We have no ancient references to these, either.
Sorry, I’m working from my notes, and don’t have the book on hand.
These are good points. Still, we can take Papias as witness to some kind of early sayings gospel.
What I find impressive is that the Q hypothesis was invented before any early sayings gospels had been found. The discovery of GThomas was a stunning confirmation of the basic idea. even though GThomas is obviously not Q itself. It’s rare enough that a historical theory gets confirmed by new data. Even a partial confirmation like this counts for a lot.
Very interesting arguements, but may I ask a question? It seems to me that (unless there are some more old manuscripts discovered)it will NEVER be possible to prove any of the assertions put forth here.
My question is: how come Paul never seems to mention the Gospels? Does this mean that they were not used until after Paul’s death?
Finally, the three “synoptic” gospels seem to be pretty complete…why was the fourth gospel (John) written?
I’d suggest the minor agreements do make for a reasonably clear case. Working from those, we do the same thing you outlined above–try and find something that fits the data.
I’m not arguing that Luke knew Matthew based on the entirety of the birth narrative, I’m saying that because Luke agrees with Matt. on points a, b and c, point d may have come about through these means, and points e f and g may have been ignored for these reasons.
[/QUOTE]
That?s a good point, but Mark is pretty harsh on all the disciples. They all seem rather dim-witted, not catching on to who Jesus really is. Should we conclude that Mark?s community didn?t identify with any of the disciples?
[/QUOTE]
I think that’s certainly a possibility. Perhaps they identified with Peter by fiat. There’s really no clearcut claim to any apostolic authority in any of the synoptics.
I’m not wholly persuaded that the “Signs Gospel” was any kind of document, except one written by John.
The “Signs” certainly aren’t out of touch with the megalomaniacal Jesus of the fourth gospel.
I beg to differ, particularly in the case of Crossan and the “Cross Gospel.” The Passion–the same one found in Mark as in Peter–doesn’t make sense if it’s read outside the context of Mark’s gospel–it brings various themes of Mark to fruition. The reason it does that so brilliantly is that Mark made it up. The reason Peter has similar features is that he was sitting down with Mark in front of him.
I’d flip a coin on the Signs Gospel, and put Irish Sweepstake odds on there being a Cross Gospel.
I should be able to get to the library this weekend, I’ll post the citation and my comments here.
It’s a long way from “some kind of early sayings gospel” to Papias referring to Q.
I agree, but many ancient writers clearly employed similar techniques–collected sayings, and then added contexts. The Cynics make the best example of that, of course, but there are many others. Herodotus did so, so did Plutarch (I regret I don’t have a reference for either at the moment, but will dig them up).
That sayings gospels developed seemed to be a given once the gospels were analyzed in their contexts.
Perhaps Luke had heard the same polemics John had, and wished to avoid them. Inspired by the fact that his source had a birth narrative, Luke tailored one for his own audience.
I still think it’s the best explanation, but it’s not impossible–not even really implausible–to dispense of it.
). Keep an eye out.