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

Re: [XTalk] Worries about Q (Luke's assessments)

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... James, No, I didn t mean that. I think Luke must have compared Mark and Matthew and correctly concluded that Mark was earlier and in general more reliable
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      James Barlow wrote:

      >So the reputation Luke as a scholar aware of relative antiquity and
      >historical merit of his sources validates Markan accuracy in terms of
      >general chronological, geographical layout?

      James,
      No, I didn't mean that. I think Luke must have compared Mark and
      Matthew and correctly concluded that Mark was earlier and in general
      more reliable in passages where they overlap, and therefore better as a
      basis for his own account. But the relative judgement "more reliable"
      doesn't "validate Markan accuracy".

      > Do you think Luke regarded "Q" as earlier than Mark?

      I'm sure Luke would have regarded the 3ST-based sayings source (which
      I've called sQ) as earlier than Mark, because Mark was in Greek, whereas
      sQ (according to my hypothesis) was in Aramaic.

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.