FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-29-2006, 09:38 PM   #31
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evan
I certainly agree with you that the fact that a Q manuscript has never been found is not sufficient grounds to deny Q's existence. However, I would be cautious about claiming that it can be shown that Matthew and Luke were independent, and that they copied from a common source. Neither of those premises has ever been proven, nor can they be. The entire Q hypothesis rests on exceedingly thin ice.

Evan
"Thin ice" is a giant overstatement. Not quite proven? Maybe. But it's still the current working hypothesis. Do you have a preferred alternative?
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 05-29-2006, 11:51 PM   #32
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
"Thin ice" is a giant overstatement. Not quite proven? Maybe. But it's still the current working hypothesis. Do you have a preferred alternative?
Scholars have long proposed alternative solutions to the Q theory which suggest Luke was dependent upon Matthew. The Griesbach hypothesis argues that Matthew was first, Luke was second and dependent upon Matthew, and Mark was third, creating an epitomized Gospel that was dependent upon both Matt and Luke. The Farrer-Goulder theory proposes that Mark was first, Matthew second, and Luke was dependent upon both earlier Gospels. Either way, conventional alternatives to the Q theory argue that Luke copied from Matthew. This constitutes a fundamental error in Synoptic theory, as there is no realistic possibility that Luke could have copied from Matthew.

Matthew is demonstrably the last and most evolved of the Synoptic Gospels. It contains a greater concentration of Jesus traditions than does Luke, and in many cases key traditions such as the Great Sermon, the Lord's Prayer, and the Great Commission are more sophisticated in form. In numerous instances, Matthew's pericopae are conflations of elements taken from Mark and Luke, which suggests that the author of Matthew used the Gospels of Mark and Luke as source texts. Conversely, there is no instance in which a pericope in Luke is composed of elements found in Mark and Matthew.

The Q theory in contemporary scholarship rests upon the notion that alternatives to Q are problematic in that they assume Luke's use of Matthew. Since most scholars (rightly) regard Luke's use of Matthew as highly improbable, the Q theory wins by default. On the other hand, Matthew's use of both Mark and Luke accounts for the double tradition phenomenon, and it also accounts for the fact that many of Matthew's passages are simple conflations of elements found in Mark and Luke.

The simplest and most comprehensive solution to the Synoptic Problem is that Mark was first, Luke followed and was dependent on Mark, and Matthew was last and dependent on both of the earlier Gospels. The time will soon come when the Q theory is dispensed with, and Matthean posteriority is recognized as the final solution to the Synoptic Problem.

Evan
Evan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:38 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.