Diogenes the Cynic

The evidence is both linguistic (the style of the Q sayings is distinct from the individual styles of Matthew and Luke), and the fact that they have no awareness of each other, and indeed contradict each other wildly, outside of their shared Markan and Q material. Luke also does not follow any of Matthew's uses (or corrections) of Mark, indicating even more that he had no knowledge of Matthew. Luke and Matthew also present the Q material in a different order. Luke preserves the order of Mark, so why not Q? If he was copying matthew, then how did he know the difference betyween markan and non-Markan material? If he's copying Matthew, then why does he show no awareness of Matthew at any turn?

aa5874

Your post is UTTER BS.

You have NO KNOWN original authentic writings of the UNKNOWN authors of gMatthew and gLuke.

Again, you show a rather limited knowledge of the Gospels.

You very well know that the Jesus stories in the EXISTING Codices were NOT written by the original authors and most likely represent copies of copies of copies.

You very well know that there are stories in gMatthew and gLuke that MUST have been INVENTED but yet put forward the absurd notion that differences in a story most likely was derived from another source when they very well could have been INVENTED by the authors themselves.

You cannot ISOLATE yourself from LOGICS.

You cannot present absurdities as facts nowadays--people in the 21st century can identify them rather easily.

dog-on

Thanks, I will consider the linguistic evidence.

To the rest, I was not comparing Matthew to Luke, but asking you to show evidence that Matthew is independent of Q and vice versa.

Diogenes the Cynic

If Luke didn't get it from Matthew, it has to be independent of Matthew.

spin

Given the evidence that Enoch didn't have the Similitudes at the time the Qumran texts were deposited, we have a strong suggestion that the Similitudes were written during christian times, so that the references to "son of man" therein would not be available to help create a trajectory from Daniel to the use given to Jesus of the phrase.

What are the sources for the evolution of this Son of Man figure in subsequent literature you refer to?

At the same time, it should be noted that Daniel never talks of "the son of man", but of "one like a son of man", who appears to be a representative of the Jews, a sort of emblem, just as the Babylonians had one like a lion, the Medes one like a bear, etc. The Jews had a human like figure. The use in Daniel of the term "son of man" is standard for the culture. The figure was described as seemingly human. A radical jump took place from one looking like a "son of man" to a figure referred to as "the son of man". As things stand that development seems unprecedented, so any indications that I'm not aware of would be appreciated.

dog-on

Perhaps, but irrelevant to my question.

Steven Carr

On page 17 of 'Did Jesus Exist?', Bart writes 'This has recently been expanded in a second edition, published not as a revision (which it is) but rather as its own book, Jesus: Neither God nor Man: The Case for a Mythical Christ.'

Did Ehrman get the very name of the book wrong?

Or is it just me?

Normally Ehrman gets the name of a book he has read correct, often by checking the title to see if he has managed to remember it rightly.

Diogenes the Cynic

I think I did not make myself clear. I was saying that if Luke did not get Q from Matthew, then Q is independent of Matthew.

MrMacSon

Well. "it" is elusive, isn't "it"? As is the hypothetical Q - pure speculation.

It is possible there was more than a single Q, such as a longer tradition of story development, and a myriad of stories that contributed to the development of the synoptics.

spin

It's certainly not speculation as you claim. In fact, "{i}f Luke didn't get {the material in common} from Matthew, it has to be independent of Matthew." As DoC states the issue, it's a logical necessity. That doesn't mean that your notion in the second paragraph is wrong. However, there are necessarily literary connections between the materials, suggesting, if Lk didn't derive it directly from Mt, there was some form of shared textual source(s), though whether containing exactly the same material or not cannot be said.