Re: On Q
- --- 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.
> 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