Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
05-29-2006, 09:38 PM | #31 | |
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
Quote:
|
|
05-29-2006, 11:51 PM | #32 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 11
|
Quote:
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 |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|