outhouse

its pretty much common knowledge there was a Q source

Despite challenges, the two source hypothesis retains wide support








those who oppose are a minority



there is a huge difference with the education level of the scholars you mention and the mythers that have posted here

outhouse

it never may have been a document, if it had it may have been destroyed, but there are no early records of ot so this gives credibility to oral tradition


oral tradition was king back then in the highly illiterate society.

90% of poor jews couldnt write, so these legends of jesus spread through oral tradition.

Gorit Maqueda

Hint: Matthew and Luke follow X (Mark) more or less in the same narrative order, but they have Y (Q) in completely different order. Q is mostly sayings, and it is suggested that these sayings had not a narrative context. IF Matthew and Luke picked these sayings and invented a narrative context for them, it seems logical that these contexts (and order) were different. But if Luke picked 'Q' from Matthew, why did he stripped it from its (Matthean) context and gave it a completely new one, but did not do the same with Mark?

Gorit Maqueda

IIUYC, the only real difference from the 'standard' Q hypothesis and what you say is the name given to the Q document.

Standard:

N/A
You:

N/A
Of course we may hypothesize several versions of each document, so the '|' and the 'X' get somewhat blurred, but the main lines are the same.

andrewcriddle

Could you please give what you think is the best example ?

Andrew Criddle

yalla

It is precisely these alleged criticisms that Olson addresses in the article titled "How Luke was Written".
The link is at post #15.

He finds that the way Luke presents his material is consistent with the way ancient authors used material from multiple sources.

Conversely he finds that "if Matthew had conflated Markan and Q in the way [a Q proponent] hypothesizes he seems to have invented a new method of composition otherwise unattested in classical literature" p. 50.

Ancient writers had difficulty utilising multiple sources.
They usually [virtually always] followed the sequence and wording of their major source in large sections and 'tacked on' small blocks of material in between.
It is this, in accordance with common ancient practice, that Luke has done when using Mark as his major source and Matthew as his lesser.

I would recommend reading the article.
It strongly undermines what is wrongly stated by Q proponents to be a weakness of the Farrer theory. In fact the structure of Luke is a weakness of the Q hypothesis - not the only weakness, the minor agreements are a major stumbling block.

See what you think.

Huon

Here is Luke's Special Material for the parables alone.

Good Samaritan (Lk 10:29-37)
Persistent Knocking (Lk 11:5-8)
Wealthy farmer (Lk 12:16-20)
Unfruitful fig tree (Lk 13:6-9)
Places at table (Lk 14:7-11)
Tower builder (Lk 14:28-30)
King contemplating war (Lk 14:31-32)
Lost Coin Parable (Lk 15:7-10)
Prodigal Son Parable (Lk 15:11-32)
Unjust Manager Parable (Lk 16:1-12)
Rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31)
Dutiful servant (Lk 17:7-10)
Ten Leper Healing (Lk 17:11-19)
The Kingdom of God is Within You (Lk 17:20-21)
Persistent widow & Unjust Judge Parable (Lk 18:1-8)
Pharisee and Tax collector Parable (Lk 18:9-14)
Zacchaeus (Lk 19: 1-10)
Jerusalem Destruction Prediction (Lk 19:39-44)
Before Herod (Lk 23: 6-16)
Daughters of Jerusalem (Lk 23:27-32)
Father Forgive Them (Lk 23:34)


So where did the authors of Luke get these parables?

yalla

Same places all the authors got all their special material.
Why focus on Luke?
Where did Mark get his material, repeat for all gospels etc.?
What are you trying to imply? That Luke's sources can only be Mark and Matthew or alternatively Mark and Q?

My RSV is handy. It has footnote references that direct the reader from the text to related text.
So for example it shows for Luke 12.16-21 a cross reference to Jeremiah 17.11 where the same theme is covered to the extent of similar words.
Or maybe it was Job 27.8 Or perhaps Psalm 29.6. Or a combination of them. Source or inspiration for Luke?
Thats just one lot of limited cross references for the material you list.

These RSV cross refereneces are not exhaustive, space is limited, it doesn't reference anything for Luke 7. 31-32 but by using key words and Google you can find the source.
Try it.

Huon

Yalla, what you are writing is certainly a good remark. Luke 12.16-21 has been copied from a source in the OT.
But I have not well expressed my question. I mean that gLuke (and similarly the other gospels) were built progressively, from sources going back to the second part of the 1st century. These sources were kept by the important bishops during many centuries, down to the 4th century. So it would not be surprising that the first version of these gospels was "embellished", "corrected" from the Marcionite interpretations (for instance), and became "stabilized" around 180 CE...

yalla

I wasn't sure what you were saying Huon.
I wish I could be as fluent in a second language as you are, I have problems with my only language.

Yes, its a puzzle disguised by smoke. Interesting stuff.

Did you try to trace Luke 7.31?
You may find it amusing, the probable source precedes Christianity by hundreds of years.