Freethought & Rationalism Archive

S.C.Carlson · 07-12-2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

The Farrer model does not claim that Luke is a "rewrite" of Matthew

I don't care whether Farrer said it in so many words. If Luke was familiar with Matthew, and there was no Q, then Luke rewrote Matthew.

When you're done beating up on the strawman and got it out of your system, further discussion might be productive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

only that Matthew was one of Luke's sources.

Aside from Mark, there are no other sources that we know about. Speculation about sources that he might hypothetically have had access to cannot be used as evidence for their existence.

Excellent argument against Q, but somehow I don't think you meant it that way....

Stephen

S.C.Carlson · 07-12-2007, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One argument for Q that I haven't come across in the literature, follows from the data in Manson's The Teaching of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Thanks for this lead. I'll look into it.

I feel that the best arguments for Q involve demonstration the existence of an authorial personality behind the Double Tradition that is distinct from the authorial personalities of Matthew and Luke. Whether we can reconstruct enough of Q to conclude this is an open question.

Stephen

Ben C Smith · 07-12-2007, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

When you're done beating up on the strawman and got it out of your system, further discussion might be productive.

:notworthy:

Ben.

PS: I get this mental picture somehow of the Cowardly Lion kicking the stuffing out of the Scarecrow.

Doug Shaver · 07-13-2007, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

When you're done beating up on the strawman

I don't get it. What am I missing?

khalimirov · 07-13-2007, 07:58 AM

One thing that boggles my mind regarding the two source theory is the fact that Luke and Matthew basically did something so similar, but independently. They both happened to use the same two major sources, Mark and Q, they both basically followed the outline of Mark's Gospel adding Q material as they went along (as well as some non-Q material, L and M), they both added an infancy story (the only two infancy stories in early Christianity unless I'm mistaken) and they both followed the empty tomb story of Mark with appearances of the resurrected Jesus (while there are no resurrection appearances in Mark).

Given the multitude of ways in which Mark could be used to write a new Gospel this just seems too much of a coincidence for me. Isn't it more plausible that Luke was inspired by Matthew's gospel to do something similar?

Chris Weimer · 07-13-2007, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Oh well, can't win 'em all, I guess.

:wave:

Chris Weimer · 07-13-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

When you're done beating up on the strawman

I don't get it. What am I missing?

Have you actually read Goodacre's book?

Chris Weimer · 07-13-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

This is certainly possible, but since a couple of scholars have shown that Mark->Matthew->Luke is viable, throwing an extra hidden variable into the mix, such as Q, doesn't seem to add any explanatory power, as long as you make the very reasonable assumption the reason the authors of Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels, was to push their own agendas, rather than to act as unbiased historians.

Whether Luke using Matthew is viable or not has yet to be really demonstrated. The debate continues.

BALDUCCI · 07-14-2007, 03:48 PM

If Q, as hypothesised, is questionable, something like Q undoubtedly existed. So its not good enough to discredit Q; one has to provide the formula for Q+. I have never been attracted by the idea of a single source. So the real Q may be a number of sources, including sources whose legacy has not survived

khalimirov · 07-14-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BALDUCCI

If Q, as hypothesised, is questionable, something like Q undoubtedly existed. So its not good enough to discredit Q; one has to provide the formula for Q+. I have never been attracted by the idea of a single source. So the real Q may be a number of sources, including sources whose legacy has not survived

What do you mean with "something like Q undoubtedly existed"? Do you mean that Matthew undoubtedly used some source(s) for his non-Markan material, or do you mean that Luke and Matthew undoubtedly used, independently, some source(s) for their non-Markan material? I think we should really only use "Q" if we mean the latter, not if we mean the former. I think we can all agree on the former.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-13-2007, 07:58 AM	#25
khalimirov Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Illinois Posts: 203	One thing that boggles my mind regarding the two source theory is the fact that Luke and Matthew basically did something so similar, but independently. They both happened to use the same two major sources, Mark and Q, they both basically followed the outline of Mark's Gospel adding Q material as they went along (as well as some non-Q material, L and M), they both added an infancy story (the only two infancy stories in early Christianity unless I'm mistaken) and they both followed the empty tomb story of Mark with appearances of the resurrected Jesus (while there are no resurrection appearances in Mark). Given the multitude of ways in which Mark could be used to write a new Gospel this just seems too much of a coincidence for me. Isn't it more plausible that Luke was inspired by Matthew's gospel to do something similar?

07-14-2007, 03:48 PM	#29
BALDUCCI Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: scotland Posts: 365	If Q, as hypothesised, is questionable, something like Q undoubtedly existed. So its not good enough to discredit Q; one has to provide the formula for Q+. I have never been attracted by the idea of a single source. So the real Q may be a number of sources, including sources whose legacy has not survived

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.