Re: No Luke: a thought experiment about Q
- Ron wrote: "How would we tackle the Synoptic Problem if we did not have Luke's gospel?
This scenario should be easy to imagine for those of us who accept that
there was a time when Mark and Matthew existed and Luke was not yet written."
Not so easy, though, for those of us who think there was a time when Mark and Luke existed (and pssibly Q?)and Matthew had not yet been written.
JOHN E STATON
- John Poirier wrote (a year ago, but on looking back I've just thought of a
> ....... the double agreements are betterJohn,
> explained through Luke's direct knowledge of Matthew (or vice versa) than by
> Matthew's and Luke's independent use of Q.
Should I deduce from this statement that you are treating the Double
Tradition as a unit? In other words, are you deducing that the close
agreements in passages such as Mt 3:7-10 // Lk 3:7-9 indicate that Luke took
the *whole* of the Double Tradition material from Matthew (or vice versa)?
If so, then perhaps you would explain why you have concluded that the Double
Tradition has a single direct source rather than (say) some of Luke's Double
Tradition material coming directly from Matthew and some directly from a
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm