Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: On Q

Expand Messages
  • gentdave1
    ... Answering my own question (below) I find I have a problem with that senerio. The statistical analysis suggests that if there is an arrow in the Q section
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 29, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "gentdave1" <GentDave@...> wrote:
      >
      Answering my own question (below) I find I have a problem with that senerio. The statistical analysis suggests that if there is an arrow in the "Q" section it is Mt => Lk. So, while Luke may indeed have an Aramaic source, I think he probably aslo knew Matthew (which would mean, on Bruce's hypothesis, that these "Q" sayings were only added to Luke in the "B" stage.

      Dave Gentile



      >
      > Jack (and Ron),
      >
      > Again, I can certainly go as far as agreeing that many of these sayings (let's call it "core-Q") have Aramaic origins. My primary disagreement is that I think rather than being quotations from the historical Jesus, they are probably mostly sayings that accumulated in his name over time.
      >
      > Here is an interesting thing to consider: Let's take Bruce's proposal that there is a Luke_A and a Luke_B and that Luke_A pre-dates Matthew. Let's also take your assertion that Luke(_A) translates an Aramaic source, and does a good job of it. Could we then suppose that Matthew's Q is based on Luke-A's Greek Q and the Aramaic source Q? It seems this would not be much different than you proposal. Do you see a problem with it?
      >
      > Dave Gentile
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.