Monday, January 27, 2014

Is Mark Goodacre still in the minority on Q?—Chris Keith

I recently learned about the forthcoming John C. Poirier and Jeff Peterson co-edited LNTS volume, Marcan Priority Without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis, which I look forward to reading.  In addition to Jack and Jeff both being great scholars, I really enjoyed Jack's contribution to the Goodacre/Perrin book, Questioning Q.  But, between these studies and random recent conversations at SBL and other places with scholars who are increasingly doubtful of the existence of Q, it made me wonder:  Is Mark Goodacre still in the minority?  I've heard Mark, on several occasions, refer to his stance on Q (most clearly articulated in his The Case Against Q), which is that there was no Q, as a "minority" position.  Historically he's right, but in my opinion--and I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts--although this may still be the minority, it is a growing and increasingly-vocal minority.  I have myself always been Q agnostic, leaning heavily toward all-out Q doubter.  I'm not a Synoptic Problem specialist, but for me the Q hypothesis makes sense only in a methodology (source and form criticism) that I think seriously misconceives the transmission of the gospel tradition in some ways (though correctly presenting it in others).  In other words, I often don't think Q is necessary, apart from whether it's possible.  Also, and I think this is a point that goes back to Goulder but I've read Mark make as well, I think the Q hypothesis underestimates the creative abilities of the Gospel authors, viewing them sometimes as nearly robots.  I'm still reserving judgement entirely until I read Alan Kirk's magnum opus on the Synoptic Problem from an ancient media and memory perspective, but I don't think Mark's position is quite the minority it used to be.

35 comments:

  1. Q is real. I have a giant critical edition. How could it not be real...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's just they've been deliberately drawing the Matthew-Q and Luke-Q arrows the wrong way round!

      Delete
  2. Dr. Keith what is Kirk's magnum opus you are referring to?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He hasn't finished it yet but has been working on it for several years now. It will be a complete assessment of the Synoptic Problem from the perspective of social memory theory and ancient media studies. Alan is the fountain-head of social memory studies in English-speaking scholarship, so lots of us will be paying close attention once this book drops.

      Delete
    2. Also, he's a Q supporter and was one of Kloppenborg's students.

      Delete
    3. I thought I had missed it. I'm glad I hadn't. I'll be looking out for it too.

      Delete
  3. Interesting question. My sense is that Q is still the majority view, but talk of the Q community and Q recensions is not so popular. The new minority is that Mark wrote first, then Luke used Mark, then Matt worked with Mark and Luke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm curious that you regard Matthean posteriority as the new minority. Do you see it, then, as more popular than the Farrer theory?

      Delete
  4. Personally, although I recognize some of the issues raised regarding Q, I still feel that the difficulties of positing that Luke knew Matthew are virtually insurmountable. I still think the two-document hypothesis solves more problems than it creates and does so more effectively and efficiently than its rivals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Care to spell them out, Evan, so that the Q sceptics among us can get a feel for what it is about our theory you find difficult?

      Delete
    2. I don't sense Matt. Post. picking up much steam. Huggins (NovT '92) still offers one of the best defenses, albeit article-length, and I've found more recent work problematic (e.g., Edwards). Even so, it is a 'solution' that deserves more attention.

      Delete
    3. Professor Goodacre,

      My main difficulty with MwQH (which I regard as the strongest competitor to the 2DH) is Luke’s lack of certain Matthean material which I would otherwise expect him to include. For example, Luke’s infancy narrative is almost completely different from Matthew’s other than agreement on a few basic facts—the virgin birth, the setting in Bethlehem, and the name of Jesus’s parents. One example is that Luke is very interested in how Gentiles come to be included in God’s plan of salvation, yet he excludes the story of the magi for no particularly clear reason. The fact that the infancy narratives diverge so strongly suggests to me that there was agreement in many early Christian circles about some a few bare facts concerning Jesus’s birth, which were then independently elaborated by either the evangelists or their predecessors.

      As well, Luke’s lack of Matthew’s additions to the triple tradition is strange as well. While many instances where Luke lacks Matthew’s addLitions could perhaps be explained via Lukan redactional interests, I find it well-nigh impossible to believe that Luke would, in every case where he has both a Matthean and Markan version of a pericope before him, always prefer the Marcan version. If we take seriously Luke’s claim in his preface that he “investigat[ed] everything from the very first” (Lk 1.3 NRSV), should we think that he always found Mark to have the superior version of the events he wished to relate? Again, it is possible, but to me seems exceedingly unlikely.

      Delete
    4. I also add that, as a positive argument in favor of 2DH, the fact that minimal Q as reconstructed by most scholars seems to have a definite literary and theouelogical profile focusing on a Deuteronomistic critique of Israel's rejection of the prophets is a strong argument in favor of Q. If the double tradition were after all just the material Luke had taken up from Matthew (as it is on MwQH) I would not expect that set of material to have such a distinct profile, especially since it is fairly different from Luke's own interests.

      Delete
    5. I can’t speak for all Farrerites, Evan, but here’s why I think these objections are surmountable:

      (I.) Luke’s use of Matthew in many places does not commit him to following Matthew everywhere. Note Luke’s “Great Omission” of the material Mark 6.45-8.26. It’s true that Luke’s infancy narrative is very different from Matthew’s, though sharing a number of elements (your “basic facts”), but that may be due to his own authorial preferences. To me, perhaps the greatest difference between the two is in the reaction of the Jews who learn of the Messiah’s coming. Matthew tells us in 2.3 “When Herod the king heard this he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him,” and Herod attempts to have the infant Messiah killed. In Luke, by contrast, a great number of Jewish characters react with joy when they learn of the Messiah’s coming and praise God for allowing them to see (or even participate in) the fulfillment of his promises to Israel. The two evangelists clearly have different ideas about the Jews’ role in salvation history (compare Matt 27.25 with Luke 23.34 and Acts 3.17-18). All we can really tell here is that Matthew’s story is Matthean and Luke’s is Lukan. I don’t think it can show Luke’s ignorance of Matthew’s infancy narrative, let alone the rest of Matthew’s gospel.

      I do not think your particular example of the Magi as an element of the Matthean Infancy Narrative that we would expect Luke to use if he knew it is a strong one. You’re right that Luke is very interested in how Gentiles come to be included in God’s plan of salvation. But Luke scheme of salvation history has a very particular sequence in which God’s promises to the Jews are fulfilled first, before salvation proceeds from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. The inclusion of the Gentiles doesn’t really take off until Acts 10. Luke, in fact, tends to reduce the contact of Jesus with Gentiles found in his sources. Luke’s Great Omission means Luke fails to take advantage of the Syro-Phoenician Woman and the second Feeding of the Multitude (which some scholars think symbolizes the inclusion of the Gentiles) from Mark. And, in contrast to Matthew, in Luke’s version of the Healing of the Centurion’s boy the Centurion himself does not come into Jesus’ presence and some Jewish elders petition Jesus on his behalf on the grounds that “he loves our nation” (Luke 7.3-6). There’s also the fact that the Magi, are, well, Magi, of whom Luke disapproves (Acts 8:9-24, 13.8-12).

      (II.) On the Farrer theory, Luke does not always prefer the Markan version of a pericope where Mark and Matthew overlap. In those pericopes where Matthew is the middle term among the gospels (i.e., those which are called “Mark-Q overlaps” on the Two-Document Hypothesis), Luke is held to have followed Matthew instead of Mark. These pericopes include the Baptism, the Temptation, the Beelzebul pericope, the Parable of the Mustard Seed, parts of the Eschatological Discourse, and a few others. An interesting question is whether, on the Two-Document Hypothesis, Luke has always preferred the Q version where Mark and Q overlapped.

      (III.) The Deuteronomistic theme of Israel’s rejection and murder of the prophets and subsequent punishment by God is not peculiar to Q on the Two-Document Hypothesis, It is nowhere more apparent than in Matthew’s Parable of the Wedding Banquet (21.1-10), in which the king’s servants are killed and he punishes the murderers by destroying their city. This is generally held to be an allegory in which the king is God, the servants are the prophets (and apostles?), the killers are the unfaithful in Israel and the city is Jerusalem. These peculiar elements of Matthew’s parable (i.e., elements not paralleled in Luke’s Great Supper in Luke 14.15-24) are generally held to be Matthean redaction by adherents of the Two-Document Hypothesis. That the Deuteronomistic theme characteristic of the Double Tradition is also found in peculiarly Matthean material is very congenial to the Farrer theory. Luke would be taking over this theme in many of the places it’s found in Matthew, though not in all.

      Delete
    6. Telling Greeco-Romans that Jesus had been recognized by the Magi would be like telling Americans of the McCarthy era that your founder had first been recognized by the KGB. Luke's audience wouldn't have thought in terms of Jews vs. Gentile; they would have thought in terms of the two superpowers of the day: Rome vs. Persia.

      Combining the Magi with a star announcing the birth in much too reminiscent of Mithridates Eupator, about whom many Greco-Romans in Asia felt approximately like we fell about Osama bin Laden. I think it it perfectly plausible that Luke would not have wanted to include those elements.

      Delete
    7. Hi all,

      I know I am late to this comment thread but I am interested in exploring the infancy narratives from the perspective of the Farrer hypothesis and was wondering if anyone knew of any recent publications in this regard beyond Goulder and Goodacre. I noticed that there was not a chapter on this in the table of contents for Marcan Priority without Q.

      Raymond Brown's arguments for the complete independence of the infancy narratives is still very influential but I suspect that Luke's use of Matthew can be explained by the principle of Luke-displeasing material, particularly Matthew's distinctive use of the OT.

      Any direction for further research on this would be greatly appreciated!

      Delete
  5. To me the best argument for Q is to compare the Lukan Lord's Prayer with the Matthean Lord's Prayer. It is widely accepted that the Gospel of Matthew was written before the Gospel of Luke. If Luke were taking the LP from Matthew, the question remains: why would the writer shorten it, considering that this would be an important teaching of Jesus. It would make more sense that Matthew added words to it from a common source, hence Q.

    Alice MacArthur

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are various problems with using the Lord's Prayer as an argument for Q:
      1) the Lord's Prayer is *the* liturgical text par excellence – yes, that would effectively be some sort of semi-common source for Matthew and Luke, but it wouldn't be a sayings gospel;
      2) the Luke form has secondary glosses (most obviously "sins" for "debts") that are not present in Matthew's version;
      3) the Luke form uses fancier syntax (just look at that kai gar clause!), which it would be unlikely for Matthew to have removed;
      4) there is a textual variant with patristic support: for "your kingdom come" in Luke, the variant exists "your Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us". If this variant is Luke's original (and as the reading least likely to be a harmonization to Matthew, it's highly plausible – in fact, that arch-Q-theorist B.H. Streeter thought it was), then the "us" section of the prayer is reached early, giving a plausible redactional motive for omitting the intervening lines.

      So, in short, it's easy enough to argue that Luke's LP is just shorter, rather than more primitive. It's not an issue which is likely to swing anyone over into the Q camp, I'm afraid.

      Delete
    2. Good points, James. See also Ken Olson's article in the forthcoming volume mentioned in the post above.

      Delete
    3. I'm looking forward to it, Mark! Is the Book Depository being pessimistic when they say it'll take seven months to arrive?

      Delete
    4. James, we can't make any promises about when the book will appear, but we're trying hard to make it sooner rather than later.

      Delete
    5. There are actually several problems, Alice.

      First is the way the argument is phrased. The “Why would Luke . . .” that is so often used in writing is a rhetorical strategy that presupposes that FH is impossible, since it always expects a “he wouldn’t” answer. But the hypothesis is possible, so the goal is to think about the conditions Luke would have been under in order to do what he would have done. What you mean then when you say this (and the same thing is to be applied whenever we see this ‘why would . . .’ rhetorical phrase) is, “If Luke possessed Matthew, he would not have shortened the LP.” But before an argument of this kind is to stand, it will need supporting argumentation.

      Second, we can think of several reasons Luke would have shorten the Matthean version. 1) Authors of the ancient the world tended to avoid rewriting the exact same thing as their sources. Slavish copying was somewhat detestable. 2) Brevity is identified as rhetorical aim (See Cicero and Quintilian). 3) Perhaps, Luke is putting Matt 6:7 into practice—not that Jesus’ prayer is full of empty phrases, but perhaps Luke anticipates the tendencies of gentiles to expand their prayer (we’re assuming Theophilus is a gentile), and thus he wants to give them the most basic version possible. In addition, it prevents any objection by others to the prayer itself if it were the case that gentiles got their hands on the Matt 6:7 tradition and applied it to Jesus’ actual prayer.

      Third, I think at the root of your concern lies the idea that what Luke was writing was an official document of church, which had to preserve the words/text verbatim. It is not clear that this is the case (the Lukan prologue may suggest otherwise).

      The Lord’s Prayer is not only something that is preserved in the Gospel of Matthew. Likely, it was memorized by a good many Christians, such that what a written text says or doesn’t say is irrelevant. In other words, there is tendency (in the kind of argumentation you espouse) to prefer the written text far more over what was known by memorization (and orally). But it must be remembered that the Jesus traditions had an oral life as well, which was likely far more important than the written text (at least for a time). (The written text seems far more important to us since it is all we possess. But it wasn’t for the early Christians.) Thus it didn’t matter what Luke did to Matthew’s version, since the Lord’s Prayer was preserved in the most important place it could have been preserved—namely, in the hearts of men and women.

      If we look at Luke would have done to the Matthean version, his editorial actions make sense. And not only that, his omissions do not hinder the sense of the prayer.

      1) Luke omits the “Our who is in heaven.” (hymoœn ho en tois ouranois) Two possibilities are available to us. 1) perhaps Luke had a theological issue: God is in heaven rather than everywhere, or 2) the statement is obvious therefore not needed—i.e. where else would God be, other than in heaven?

      2) He omits “Let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”; but notice that in the expression of “Let your kingdom come” is actually contained the idea of God’s will being done. We can say that if God’s kingdom comes, his will has been done both in heaven and on earth, and thus there is at least a perceived redundancy if not a real one.

      3) The issue of Luke 11:3/Matt 6:11 has to with the expression of time: Luke: to kath’ heœmeran; Matt: seœmeron.

      4) Luke 11:4/Matt 6:12 are about the exchange of “sins” for “debts,” which James Dowden nicely pointed out.

      5) And once again, the omission of “alla rhysai heœmas apo tou poneœrou” (but deliver us from the evil one/evil) (Matt 6:13) is possibly precluded or at least perceived as such by the idea of “meœ eisenegkeœÇs heœmas eis peirasmon” (do not lead us into temptation) (Luke 11:4/Matt 6:13). If we are led into temptation, there is no way evil can be given a foothold, so there is no need to be delivered by it if one has not been tempted in the first place.

      Delete
  6. Was just curious what Goodacre and company had to say on this. Goulder had an article back in 1963 (in JTS) on the Lord's Prayer. I haven't looked at it yet; though in TCAQ, Goodacre writes that Luke "looks at the Matthean version but rewrites it in line with the version more familiar to him from frequent recitation in his own tradition" - comparing it to the variant versions recited by modern Catholics (despite that they are still _aware of_ the variants/omissions).

    I don't find this very persuasive, though. However, as a general rule I'm certainly open to more complex schemes of Synoptic interrelationships - like one in which Luke only had a rudimentary awareness of Matthew, or that there are places where both Matthew and Luke independently rely on other non-Q written sources. I'm not sure which one of these two would best explain things like the minor agreements, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Oops, this was supposed to be a reply to Alice.)

      Delete
    2. Why not persuasive, Stewart? One can witness the same thing in Luke's use of Mark -- he prefers his own traditions about the Eucharist over his literary source in Mark. Isn't that the same thing that is happening with the Lord's Prayer? In fact these provide good examples of what I mean about the routine confusion between literary priority and tradition history.

      Delete
    3. I'm curious as to why you're so sure it's tradition and not (theological?) innovation by Luke himself?

      Delete
  7. Your poll doesn't give me the option of "I'm really not sure any more." :-) Probably leaning away from Q.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I hesitate to comment on this since, as a non-scholar, I will be hopelessly out of my depth on these sorts of discussions; however, one thing that concerns me about the Farrer Hypothesis is that it doesn't seem to explain the origins of the Q and M material in Matthew. Did Matthew make it up? Did he get it from oral tradition? Did it come from a written source? Some combination of the above? It seems that if we go with anything but the first option, we are approaching a Q-like hypothesis.

    As I recall, Goodacre mentioned this issue in the concluding chapter of his book as an area for future study. If Mark is still monitoring these comments, I'd be interested to hear his take on this.

    Matt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ll take a crack at this (but hopefully Goodacre will have the final say).

      The Synoptic Problem is one specific area of inquiry in the larger subject of Gospel Origins. As such, the Synoptic Problem really only deals with the relationship that the Synoptic Gospels have with each other (or the possible relationships). It doesn’t deal with the question of the origins of the material or tradition whose dependence cannot be explain by some direction of dependence between the three, which would be the case for Mark (if Markan Priority) and Matthean 2bl Trad and special M (Matthew’s use of Mark), or L material (Luke’s use of Matthew and Mark). (Not that these aren’t important areas of inquiry, but they just don’t come under the question of the Synoptic Problem.)

      The question is thus not “what sources does Matthew use?” but considering the material that the Synoptics have in common does Matthew use Mark or does Mark use Matthew; does Luke use Mark or does Mark use Luke; does Matthew use Luke or does Luke use Matthew?

      Under FH, Matthew makes use of Mark plus 2bl Trad + M material, no doubt. We don’t know (we need not know) if these two types of material would have been separate, but the question of where he got this material from, what its nature is, isn’t strictly speaking a question that people who work on the Synoptic Problem have to answer. It comes under the broader question of synoptic origins. If we think that this is a question that has to be answered by proponents of FH, then the same question will have to apply to Mark (privileging Matthew’s material is arbitrary). What is the nature of Mark’s material, where is from, etc? It will also have to apply for Luke’s special material (assuming FH). The question would also then apply for 2DH: where do Matthew and Luke get their M and L material? Where does Q get its material from? Where does Mark get his material from? A similar situation occurs for 2GH.

      No doubt there were other sources besides Mark, Matthew, and Luke, but the question is about what the direction of dependence is between these three, not what all the sources are that are involved in the coming to be of the synoptic gospels.

      Another way to put this is that Luke may have made use of Matthew and Mark. And Matthew in this scenario may have made use of another source (whether oral or written) besides Mark. It doesn’t then follow that because Matthew made use of that other source that therefore Luke also made use of it and that they did so independently. In other words, even if there is another source that Matthew used besides Mark, we do not arrive at 2DH as a result of thinking that Matthew used it. In this way, even if Matthew did use another source, FH can still be the best scenario. And as such it does not matter where the other source came from or what its nature is.

      Delete
    2. John, thank you for your reply. I understand your point, and I agree with it in principle; however, I think that the issue I raised does at least bear on one particular argument that has been put forward in favor of the FH.

      The FH has been described as a simpler solution than the 2SH because it does not depend upon the existence of an otherwise unknown document of sayings material. Therefore, under the principle of Occam's Razor, it ought to be considered more likely to be true than the 2SH.

      If, however, the FH requires us to assume that Matthew used an otherwise unknown document as his source for some or all of the Q+M material, then the FH isn't really a simpler solution. It has just moved the complexity to a different part of the process.

      This doesn't invalidate the idea that Luke might have used Matthew, but I think it does weaken the Occam's Razor argument that Goodacre and others have put forward.

      Matt

      Delete
    3. Matthew,

      Indeed, cognitive economy needs to be a part of the equation when considering Synoptic Problem solutions. However, if complexity increases because you are considering the source that Matthew uses (2bl + (some, most of) M) under FH, it will also increase when you employ the same logic (which you must employ to avoid special pleading) to the other solutions.

      Consider the following:

      FH1: Luke’s use of Matthew and Mark; Matthew’s use of Mark (3 sources)
      FH2 (your kind): Luke’s use of L and Matthew and Mark; Matthew’s use of Mark and (2bl + (some, most of) M); Mark’s use of sources.
      At minimum, then, there are at least 6 sources (Lk, L, Matt, M+2bl, Mk, MkS). Whereas, originally, FH assumes 3.

      But,

      2DH1: Luke’s use of Q and Mark; Matthew use of Q and Mark (4 Sources)
      2DH2 (your kind) Luke’s use of Q, L, and Mark; Matthew’s use of Q, M, and Mark; Q uses of sources; Mark’s use of sources. At minimum, Lk, Q, L, Mt, M, Mk, MkS, QS. (At least 8 sources)
      *If Q is not one document but two (See Luz, Studies in Matthew, or those who maintain that Matthew’s Q couldn’t have been the same as Luke’s), that’s another one bringing it to 9. If orality is a factor, you’ve potentially increased multiple oral sources that may be several in number, which makes 2DH/2SH an even more complex hypothesis.

      One doesn’t get to object to FH by increasing its complexity (moving from FH1 to FH2), while refusing to do the same to 2DH! (of 2GH, etc.) This is a game the whole family has to play!

      The point is, the argumentation you would use to show that FH is actually more complex (which it is) than FH1, actually makes 2DH more complex as well (which it is, as well). And thus there is essentially no advantage to discussing Matthew’s non-Markan sources, or any sources that do not actually speak to the issue of the Synoptic Problem. They are better allocated to another section on Gospel Origins. (Kloppenborg’s treatments of Q, in Formation or in Excavating, for example, do not, strictly speaking, come under the subject of Synoptic Problem, but Gospel Origins. Likewise, any discussion of a Matthean source, doesn’t come under it as well.)

      It is not so much that these issues are not truly complicated, it’s that in order to make the discussion as succinct as possible and as uncomplicated as possible, we want to get rid of anything we do not absolutely have to discuss. I think Synoptic Problem scholars will agree (and tacitly acknowledge) that the reality of the matter is far more complicated than any diagram will allow; but there is room and ought to be room for a pragmatism which allows us to simplify the discussion.

      *So you know where I’m coming from and my interest in the SP; I’m a PhD student under Anders Runesson, at McMaster. John Kloppenborg was a professor of mine at UofT. I’m working on the SP for my dissertation.

      Delete
    4. John,

      Thanks for your reply. You have convinced me that although there may be good arguments against the Farrer Hypothesis, the one I presented is not one of them. Best of luck with your PhD.

      Matt

      Delete
  9. I would think of it a bit like this: Mark was first. It is traditionally written by Mark, the friend of Peter. As Peter was the first Pope, Mark's Gospel automatically is front and center, and Matthew and Luke use it as a jump off point (again, to keep them consistent with Mark's papal Gospel). It is interesting when you look at what is in Matthew alone (the one of the Synoptics written by an eyewitness). "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah...You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" When Mark was writing his gospel, Peter did not emphasize what Jesus said to him (out of humility), Matthew, witnessing the event, reports the scene as he remembers.

    I agree with the idea of Q, if it is simply the source used between Matthew, Luke, and the Didache (not necessarily a written source), but if it is a written source, we have no ancient texts/fragments to support it. I would say that Luke was first, spending time in Antioch, hearing the traditions being passed on, someone travelling with them kept a journal, and then they went to Rome together. Paul and Peter ended up being his primary sources, but then for some of the M-L material (not all), he wrote it from memory, or from the tradition they had in Rome (different wording of the Our Father, etc). Matthew, writing in Antioch, was living within the Antiochene tradition. He preserves what oral traditions they had (and likely is the supplier of many of them). He and any of the other apostolic leaders write the Didache. When they first come into contact with Mark (and Luke's) writings, he gets to work on writing Matthew (possibly originally in Aramaic).

    John writes in the 90s.

    -My crazy convoluted thoughts

    ReplyDelete
  10. Correct me if I am off base, but it seems to me that there is a major difference from what one might conclude regarding the nature of Q if one accepts the Two Source theory instead of the idea that Matthew also used a sayings or gospel source. In the case of Q, it has been posited that the community producing it was one in a wisdom trajectory in which passion and resurrection plays no essential role, since they are missing from the posited Q. But, in the case of Matthew's using a "Q" or an unknown gospel there is no way to conclude that such a source lacked the passion narrative or resurrection stories, because there is no appeal to Mark possible. With no appeal to Mark there is no "picher movement" to isolate a Q which lacks the passion/resurrection. Therefore, there is no reasonable way to identify the existence of an early "wisdom" community who possessed a theology unlike the ones we have in Paul and the gospels which include passion and resurrection.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I intended to say "there is no appeal to Luke possible." And, "With no appeal to Luke there is no way to isolate a Q which lacks the passion/resurrection."

    Thank You.

    ReplyDelete