Re: Q and Papias
On Thu, 27 Oct 1994, Stephen Carlson wrote:
> > 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
> > passages.
> Another possibility is scribal harmonization, though the textual evidence
> is meager. Do we have good 2nd and 3rd century witness for the nearly
> identical passages in Mt and Lk?
It's an interesting thought, but it seems a pretty slim limb to hang a
reasonable alternative on. I'd be willing to explore this possibility,
but I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there doesn't already have an
answer. It's a matter of checking the extent of texts in MSS earlier than
4th c, as I suppose the critical apparatus gives adequate information on
any significant variants from the "commonly received" text.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org