Re: [Synoptic-L] One of Histories Little Ironies
- On 21/06/06, Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:
>I think he found the Q hypothesis difficult to square with the kind of
> The below quote doesn't seem surprising to me as the Q hypothesis addresses
> the double tradition in Mt and Lk. Am I missing something?
> Mark Goodacre wrote:
> Farrer's St Matthew and St Mark was published in 1951, the
> same year as Butler's book, and in the introduction Farrer talks -- briefly
> -- about how he has never found the Q hypothesis necessary or helpful in
> expounding Matthew's relationship with Mark.
creative interpretation and expansion of Mark that Farrer saw in
Matthew. To take one early example, Matthew 3 would be Matthew's
creative expansion of Mark 1, drawing in typical Matthean language and
themes rather than Matthew's conflation of Mark and Q.
Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
Department of Religion
314 Gray Bldg./Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530