Dominus Paradoxum

Just to ask, has anyone ever proposed that Mark wrote first, then Luke using Mark with some "L material", perhaps, and then Matthew copying Luke? For if Q did not exist (which I am willing to enterain as a possibility), then it seems to me, from what I have read so far (which is admittedly not too much) that this is the most reasonable hypothesis, given a) The arguments for Markan priority b)the more primitive forms of the sayings in Luke and thomas, and c) Matthew's more "developed" stlye, as exemplified in the sermon on the mount.

Vorkosigan

Which is easier to imagine, that Matthew created the Sermon on the Mount by plucking things hither and yon from Luke, or that Luke broke it up and redistributed it?

Dominus Paradoxum

Is that a rhetorical question? Because the answer does not seem self evident.

To me, anyway, it seems eaiser to imagine that Matthew patched it together a la Victor Frankenstein.

spin

I'll go for a bit of both... well, I mean that they used their sources differently. Matt does tend to fuse elements anyway, if my very hazy memory still works. (Matt unites the cognate stories the sending of the 12 and of the 72 -- Luke has them separate...)


spin

Intelligitimate

In my other thread, I quoted Strauss as saying:

Amaleg also pointed this out:

It would seem to me, that where Matthew and Luke differ, it is easier to maintain that Luke changed Matthew, rather than vice versa.

I myself have been seriously doubting the Q hypothesis as of late. Without Q, the modern liberal Jesus just whithers away. That's one less historical Jesus theory the MJ hypothesis has to compete with.

I need to read Goodacre's book.

Chris Weimer

I've always seen it as thus:

Q as a compilation of various sayings etc...
Q then diverges into Mark and Thomas and Tertis
Mark survives as we have it, and Luke takes from Mark and Tertis
Matthew then takes from Luke and Tertis
Thomas is probably used to some extent although I doubt the copy that we have now is the original.

Johann_Kaspar

Why do so many scholars consider that the gospels were written in one year or a short period of time?
All gospels were edited over lengthy periods of time by different authors, material added or/and deleted. So it is useless to discuss which came first... Matthew could come first and to be the last one to be edited. One hypothesis among others with not much substrat to support scientifically anything for certain. I am amazed that so many people like guess work.

Layman

Martin Hengel proposes something like this. At least as to Lucan priority over Matthew. Can't remember how he places Q into the equation. But he does think that Luke wrote before Matthew.

I read about it in his, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A decent book beyond this one issue.