Subject: Anti-Q

From: "Vinton A. Dearing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:51:27 PST

Anti-Q

The most important textual problem in New Testament studies is the 
relationship of the Gospels. Important as it is to solve the textual 
problems within each Gospel, these investigations are only 
preliminaries, logically speaking, to the more overarching question, 
and practically speaking they are not needed for resolving the 
(logically) final and (practically) simpler problem.
     The widely accepted theory that Matthew and Luke, to give the 
authors their conventional names, each drew upon three sources, 
supplementing Mark and Q with M and L respectively, is unnecessarily 
complex, as William R. Farmer recognized (The Synoptic Problem, 
[1976]), but Farmer's proposed return to J. J. Griesbach's hypothesis 
that Luke used Matthew and that Mark used both of them is still not 
the simplest solution. Furthermore, both theories leave John out of 
account.
     With respect to the four source theory, note that the evidence 
adduced for it would be equally well explained by dropping either M 
or L. True, if Matthew and Luke were consistent, then having 
exhausted Mark they should also have exhausted Q. On the other hand, 
the number of sources for one of them can be reduced by supposing 
that the other did not exhaust Q. If Matthew did not exhaust Q then 
we need not hypothesize a third source for Luke, and if Luke did not 
exhaust Q then we need not hypothesize a third source for Matthew. 
The fact that under a three source hypothesis we cannot tell whether 
it was Matthew or Luke who was inconsistent in his treatment of his 
sources is not an argument against it. Reducing the number of sources 
from four to three meets the criterion of Occam's razor, the rule of 
parsimony, whereas asserting consistency of method in Matthew and 
Luke does not. "Consistency in all things," said uncle Carl, as he 
smashed the last of the plates against the wall  -- that story, 
wherever it came to me from, has always appealed to me. And of course 
we can suppose that neither Matthew nor Luke was consistent, and that 
neither exhausted Q, reducing their sources  two. But there is still 
a better appeal to Occam's rule.
     Let us begin with a definition and an axiom. A "document" is by 
definition a body of information; it may have one or more physical 
forms, or none at all, without losing its identity. Documents form 
sequences according to their progressive and perhaps branching 
deviation from an original circumstance, which latter may be purely 
mental, the germ of an idea, an initial concept, or protomental an 
observed fact or set of facts.
      Now the axiom. Having three documents with similar contents, 
then if in some part of their contents two agree against the third 
the third is not an intermediary between them, i.e., if document A 
agrees with document B at a place where document C disagrees with 
them, then document C is not an intermediary between A and B. It is, 
of course, possible that A and B agree here by accident, or because 
one has been corrected, but as these possibilities are exceptions to 
normal transmission of information from document to document they do 
not disprove the general rule.
     From here on you may find the argument easier to follow if you 
draw the stemmas described.
     The rule of parsimony limits the number of lost documents we 
must assume in order to make a normal continuity between the extant. 
That is, if none of A, B or C can be an intermediary between the 
other two, then we assume as few lost intermediary documents as 
possible. E.g., if the other evidence allows, we conclude that a lost 
document D draws on, say, B and that A and C draw on D independently 
(stemma: B at the top, D in the middle, A and C across the bottom, a 
line from B to D and two lines from D, one each to A and to C). Or, 
with other evidence, we conclude that there is a second lost document 
on which B and the first draw independently (stemma: D2 at the top, 
D1 in the middle at the right, B, A, and C across the bottom, two 
lines from D2, one each to B and to D1, two lines from D1, one each 
to A and to C). We do not assume that B, say, draws on C, say, and A 
on both of the others (stemma: C at the top, B in the middle at the 
right, A at the bottom, two lines from C, one each to A and to B, and 
a line from B to A), for it is more normal for one document to draw 
on another than for one to draw on two others, that is, simple 
copying is the normal reason why documents agree, and we do not 
assume exceptions to the rule -- even though such an assumption would 
not require that there be even one lost document, and even though 
emendation and accidental agreement are always possible.
     Now, with respect to the four Gospels, since they all agree that 
Jesus of Nazareth accepted the title Son of God and that he died on 
the cross because of it, then, because each Gospel has additional 
information unique to it and each omits information found in all the 
others, none of them can, under the general rule, be an intermediary 
between any two of the others.
     It follows, then, that the genetic relationship among the 
Gospels can be any of the following, in increasing order of 
complexity (in drawing the stemmas use F for the facts about Jesus, G 
for a Gospel, and D for a missing "document" as defined above).     
     1. The four Gospels are independent accounts of Jesus' life, 
that is, the authors did not draw on one another's work even if they 
knew it (stemma: F at the top, four Gs across the bottom, four lines 
from F, one to.each G). Another way to put it is to say that the four 
Gospels are independent witnesses to the facts about Jesus.
     2. A document has been lost and:
        a. The four Gospels draw independently on it -- J. G. 
Herder's hypothesis of a lost gospel (stemma: F at the top, D in the 
middle, four Gs across the bottom, a line from F to D and four from 
D, one to each G); or
        b. Three Gospels draw on the lost document and it draws on 
the other Gospel (stemma: F at the top, G1 below it, D below G1 and 
three Gs across the bottom, a line from F to G1, another from G1 to 
D, and three from D, one to each of the remaining Gs); or
        c. Three Gospels draw on the lost document and it and the 
other Gospel are independent accounts (stemma: F at the top, D in the 
middle at the right, four Gs across the bottom, two lines from F, one 
each to G1 and to D, and three from D, one to each of the other Gs); 
or
        d. Two Gospels and the lost document are independent 
accounts, the other two Gospels drawing on the lost document (stemma: 
F at the top, D in the middle at the right, four Gs across the 
bottom, three lines from F, one each to G1, to G2 and to D, two lines 
from D, one to each of the other Gs.
     3. Two documents have been lost and:
        a. They are independent accounts, each the source of two of 
the Gospels (stemma: F at the top, two Ds across the middle, four Gs 
across the bottom, two lines from F, one to each D,and two lines from 
each D, one each to a G); or
        b. One lost document draws on one of the Gospels and is the 
source of a second Gospel and of the other lost document, which is 
the source of the remaining Gospels (stemma: F at the top, G1 below 
it, D1 below G1, D2 below D1 at the right, and three Gs across the 
bottom, a line from F to G1, another from G1 to D1, two lines from 
D1, one to G2 and the other to D2, and two from D2, one to each of 
the remaining Gs); or
        c. One lost document is the source of the other and of two of 
the Gospels, the second lost document being the source of the other 
two Gospels (stemma: F at the top, D1 below it, D2 below D1 to the 
right, and four Gs across the bottom, a line from F to D1, three 
lines from D1, one each to G1, to G2 and to D2, two lines from D2, 
one each to the remaining Gs); or
        d. One lost document and one Gospel are independent accounts, 
the second lost document and another Gospel draw on the first lost 
document, and the other two Gospels draw on the second lost document 
(stemma: F at the top, D1 below it and to the right, D2 below D1 and 
farther to the right, and four Gs across the bottom, two lines from 
F, one each to G1 and to D1, two lines from D1, one each to G2 and to 
D2, and two lines from D2, one to each of the remaining Gs).
     All but 1 and 2a require evidence that we do not have, namely, 
that one or two of the four Gospels are repeatedly preferable to the 
others (2b and 3b, or 2d and 3c), or that some Gospel (as in c and 
3d) or pair of Gospels (as in 3a) is sometimes preferable to and 
sometimes less preferable than the others. At one time I accepted 
Streeter's reasoning about the priority of Mark (The Four Gospels, 
1930, pp. 157-169, 171), namely that its style was inferior to 
Matthew's and Luke's, that they were more reverent than he and more 
aware of the danger of Gnostic misinterpretation of the facts, that 
they sound like editors and he sounds like a reporter, and that they 
omit the parable of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26-29) by 
mutual homeoteleuton. I now reject all this reasoning: a person with 
an inferior style may not recognize the fact, revisionist biographers 
may "tell it like it was" (Washington and the cherry tree, Jefferson 
and his slaves, to cite two modern objects of reverence), the dates 
of the Gospels with respect to the rise of Christian Gnosticism are 
in doubt (I accept John Robinson's reasoning about the Gospel dates), 
and mutual homeoteleuton is a coincidence.
     Therefore, because 1 is a simpler hypothesis than 2a, it is 
preferable.
     From the foregoing it normally follows that:
       If three Gospels agree against the fourth the three are right: 
example, the apostles gathered up the leftovers from the feeding of 
the five thousand on their own initiative (John says Jesus told them 
to).
       If two Gospels agree against a third where the fourth has 
nothing comparable or disagrees with all the rest the two are right: 
example, the number of men from whom the devils went into the pigs 
(Matthew says two men, Mark and Luke say one).
       If two Gospels agree against agreement in the other two there 
is no way to tell which two are right: example, Jesus' being offered 
and rejecting a sedative drink before his crucifixion (Matthew and 
Mark tell of this).
      If two Gospels disagree when the other two have nothing 
comparable or disagree with all the rest, there is no way to tell 
which of the first two is right: example, the order of the second and 
third temptations (in Matthew and Luke).
     To say that a conclusion "normally follows" means that the 
burden of proof rests on those who would set it aside. It is 
important, however, to distinguish between two types of disagreement 
in the evidence: alternate information, and some information versus 
none. The latter kind of disagreement may be a disagreement in 
language without being a disagreement in fact. Thus Matthew's 
statement that the demons which went into the pigs came out of two 
demoniacs is not necessarily wrong, though I believe it is. Matthew 
and Mark are not necessarily either right or wrong when they say 
Jesus rejected an offered sedative before he was crucified. And John 
is not necessarily wrong in saying that Jesus "cleansed" the temple 
before he began his Galilean ministry, for the other Gospels omit the 
whole of his Judean ministry, and I believe he cleansed it twice.
     With regard to the essential nature of the errors in the Gospel 
records which such stemmatic reasoning indicates, we need to remember 
that the authors wrote when Christians still turned first to 
spiritual healing in Jesus' way (James 5:13-18). Practice of that 
kind of spiritual healing today demonstrates that it demands absolute 
honesty in its practitioners. Without honesty, as surely as without 
trust, the ability to heal through the Spirit fades away, for God is 
just, a God of truth and without iniquity. It follows that the Gospel 
authors would not have intentionally poisoned the wells of salvation 
from which they wished their readers to drink, or, more simply, that 
their errors were honest mistakes. The spiritual demand for honesty 
is, of course, also evidence against theories which make Mark a 
source for authors determined to glorify Jesus at whatever cost to 
truth.
     If I am Anti-Q, I am not also Anti-q, so to speak. When two or 
more Gospels agree word for word in a whole sentence or more, then I 
believe the authors had independently come across a written record, a 
wandering fragment of information, that they trusted and copied 
exactly, the sum of such fragments, however, making only "q," not Q. 
We have no evidence that Jesus forbade writing down his words. I do 
not believe, then, that no one ever said to Jesus, "Teacher, would 
you repeat that? I want to write it down." I do not believe that when 
asked Jesus said no. I do believe that his enemies who tried to trap 
him in his speech caused his words to be written down for that 
purpose, that is, I believe (contra Bauer-Gingrich-Danker) that 
APOSTOMATIZEIN AUTON in Luke 11:53 means "to dictate what he said" 
[i.e., to people who wrote it down] and that the alternative reading 
SUMBALLEIN AUTW means "to collect what he said." Finally, I see in my 
mind's eye Matthew with his tablets making shorthand notes as he 
inspects the bales and boxes that pass through customs at Capernaum. 
I do not believe that he left tablets and stylus behind when he "left 
all" (Luke's addition) and followed Jesus, and I believe that more 
than one person who heard Jesus preach had brought along writing 
utensils.
     The foregoing reasoning seems to me to be better than that in my 
book Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis (1974), pp. 192-201, 
where I accepted Streeter's evidence for the priority of Mark and 
defined DEXIOS as "left." The title of the present communication, 
Anti-Q, might also stand for "antique," because my current reasoning 
arrives at what was thought before Augustine asserted that Mark not 
only wrote after Matthew, he had no other source. But please, 
deconstructionists, do not join in my name game, telling me that 
"antic" is an alternate spelling of "antique" and that one meaning of 
"antic" is "grotesque." You others, please do not tell me that I 
cannot tell right from left. With those exceptions, I welcome 
comment.
     Vinton Dearing

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 97 20:10:07 +0100

I always love to see Occam's razor in motion as recently in Dr. Dearing's 
"Anti-Q". Therefore, I simply wish to discuss the following point:

>than one person who heard Jesus preach had brought along writing 

How does Occam's razor apply to the "more than one person" taking down notes? 
What about unnecessarily multiplying entities in the above outlined scenario 
when compared to the four source hypothesis? Remember, postulating four (or 
three) LARGER (written) sources accounts for a lot of (nearly) identical 
passages while at the same time reducing entities, i.e. individuals having taken 
down notes AND INDEPENDENTLY consulted by Mt and/or Mk and/or Lk and/or Joh.    
BTW-- Not only Jesus words must have been taken down, but also what "minor" 
characters have said. For example, the speech of the centurio (Mt 8,8-9 + Lk 
7,6b-8) is remarkably identical in wording and order (45 words, at least) when 
compared to the additional Jesus logion in Mt 8,11-12 (Lk 13,28-29!). 

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:01:41

>middle, four Gs across the bottom, a line from F to D and four from 
[...]
>sometimes less preferable than the others.

I believe, if I trust Farmer's citations in his SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: A
Critical Analysis, that Herder proposed a variant of option 1 (a relatively
fixed oral gospel) and Lessing proposed option 2a (a lost, written Ur-
Gospel).  I don't quite understand the reasoning behind rejecting the
other options, but the issue of interdependence has a lot to do with
similarities and nonsimilarities in *literary facts*, i.e. verbatim
and seriatim agreements in the documents not attributable to common
historical details, e.g. the way an Evangelist chooses to relate an event.

It seems to me that the most "assured result" of more than 200 years of
synoptic source criticism is that both option 1 and 2a have been largely
disproven owing to Lachmann's observation in 1835 that Mark is generally
a middle term between Matthew and Luke in Triple Tradition.  Even Butler,
who in 1951 exposed a fallacious use of Lachmann's observation, e.g. by
Streeter inter alia, recognized the cogency of Lachmann's argument against
Lessing's and Herder's positions.

>At one time I accepted 

I think these are generally good points, and that much of this kind of
argumentation lacks historical controls allowing for nineteenth and
twentieth century writing practices to be unintentionally retrojected
onto the first century.  Those scholars who have looked at how literary
sources were used in the ancient world have noticed that "[w]ith rare
exceptions, classical authors, including Josephus, *consistently* and
thoroughly rewrote their sources." [Sharon Lea Mattila, "A Question Too
Often Neglected," NTS (1995) 41:199, 207 (footnotes omitted, emphasis
original)]  Therefore, the observation that Mark's style is somehow
inferior to Matthew's and Luke's should only permit conclusions about
the authors' relative literary elegance, not priority.  In other words,
a secondary author of the first century who happens to have an inferior
style would be likely to produce a work that is stylistically inferior.

[...]
>exactly, the sum of such fragments, however, making only "q," not Q.

How far away are you from Schleiermacher's fragmentary hypothesis,
largely abandoned due to agreements in arranging the fragments?
 
Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                   : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
[email-masked]              : and songs chant the words.
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ :               -- Shujing 2.35