Subject: Q and oral tradition

From: "Vinton A. Dearing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 12:20:55 PST

Bob Waltz says that there was no single document Q because some of 
the material is oral. Wouldn't one have to say then that there was no 
single document Matthew because some of its material is oral? 
Couldn't Q be a collection of earlier material -- if there ever was 
a Q? And M and L the same? 
     Ulrich Schmid seems to me to make much the same point in 
observing that my "q," which I think of as wandering bits of 
information, is a more complex explanation of the verbal parallels 
between the Gospels than would be a gathering of such information 
from which the Gospel authors sometimes made the same selections.
I need to think about that and draw some diagrams.
      Thanks to both writers for sharing their thoughts.      
         Vinton Dearing

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:24:56 -0500 (CDT)

>a Q? And M and L the same? 

The analogy is false. Most if not all the material in the gospels --
I think most of us will agree -- was in oral circulation before it
was taken down. That's not the point. The question is, "At which
point did it shift from oral to written tradition."

What we call "Q" contains material that is identical in Matthew
and Luke, and material that is clearly parallel but not the same.
Now in the case of the former, it is clear that Matthew and Luke
derived it, possibly with some intermediate steps, from *the same*
source.

But the material that is different has clearly undergone separate
evolution. It was in oral circulation at some stage after
the sources separated, because it continued to evolve.

An obvious example is the Parable of the Pounds/Talents. The two
versions have obviously diverged. And, in fact, Matthew's version
with three servants looks like a clear oral evolution of Luke's.
(Note that I speak hear as a folklorist, not as a textual critic.)
Luke mentions ten servants, but describes only three. In the course
of time, the seven anonymous servants would be forgotten. At the
same time, the amount of money would be exaggerated. This is not
merely a common behavior of oral tradition, it is *typical*. The
extraneous is forgotten and the rest exaggerated.

This is not to say that Matthew and Luke did not work with written
"Q" documents. They may have. But they were *different* Q documents,
derived from at least two, and possibly more than two, sources.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:48:03 -0700 (PDT)

In addition to comparing the Q material in Matthew and Luke, I find it
instructive to look at the parallel passages in the Gospel of Thomas. I'm
not a sholar, but it looks to me like much of Gos. Thomas was derived from
the Q tradition, though it had developed here along lines which are rather
different from the Mattean and Lukan versions.

---
Gregory Woodhouse
[email-masked]    /    http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
If, in English, we have pronouns, why do we not also have proverbs?

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:11:08 -0500 (CDT)

>different from the Mattean and Lukan versions.

Exactly. Matthew, Luke, and Thomas all has access to a fund of common
material. It would appear that Matthew and Luke had *some* of this
material in common written form, but the form in Thomas diverged
earlier. I personally believe that the material in Thomas split off
at an earlier date than the divergence between Matthew and Luke, and
that all three traditions were oral at that point.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]