[Synoptic-L] Does Q have an un-Markan Profile?
- Mark Goodacre wrote -
>It seems to me that on any hypothesis what is in Luke is Luke-pleasing
>One of the advantages of the Farrer theory, it seems to me, is
>that it predicts that: (1) Q material will be Luke-pleasing material,
>because this is the material that Luke took over from Matthew...
material. Since what is in Q is in Luke, what is in Q is therefore Luke-
pleasing material. If the Farrer Hypothesis predicts that Q will be
Luke-pleasing it would seem merely to predict that what is Luke-
pleasing material is Luke-pleasing material. Or am I missing something
>It seems to me that also on any hypothesis, the Q material or double
>The Griesbach theory makes a different prediction. The Q material is
>defined not by what Luke took over from non-Markan Matthew but by what
>Mark left out of the combined witness of Matthew and Luke. So the
>question is this: does the double tradition material have a
>distinctively non-Markan profile?
tradition **overlaps** material in Mark. The blessed overlap exists! The
double tradition therefore must have a partly Markan profile, and
therefore cannot have a "distinctively non-Markan profile".
I would suggest that from the view-point of the Griesbach Hypothesis the
Q material or double tradition is what Mark left out of the combined
witness of Matthew and Luke some of which was repeated in other places
in Matthew or Luke and which Mark took over from those places. (He could
not have taken it from Mark!) In this case, on the Griesbach Hypothesis
we should expect the double tradition to have a partly Markan profile,
and therefore not to have a distinctively non-Markan profile.
E-MAIL : brian@... HOMEPAGE
SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
10 York Close, Godmanchester, www.twonh.demon.co.uk
Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8EB, UK