Re: Q and Papias

On 25 Oct 1994, STEVE SCHAPER wrote:
> In a message dated 10-23-94  DDDJ wrote to Steve Schaper:
> D> It is obvious that there is a literary relationship between Matt and
>  D> Luke. Whether this is Q or whether this is an abridgement of one
>  D> gospel writer by another will never be proven.
> It has been conclusively (or so it seems to me) shown that there is no
> literary relationship between the synoptics. Yes, they record the same events,
> often, but the actual texts show, when analyzed, that they are not
> _literarily_ dependant. That does not preclude, of course, witnessing the same
> events and then writing them down, or taking notes or memorizing as the
> disciples of rabbis often did.
How can literary relationship between Luke and Matthew be conclusively 
denied in the face of extended passages that have identical Greek text? 
To me that is explicable in very few ways: (1) Mt copied Lk; (2) Lk 
copied Mt; (3) Lk & Mt both copied a third source; (4) the identical 
texts sprang like Athena from the head of Zeus. It is not simply a matter 
of similar accounts of similar or the same events told by different 
witnesses to the same events, but of identical Greek text in several 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com

Follow-Ups: References: