From: Paul Moser (PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu)
Date: Fri Oct 13 1995 - 10:46:00 EDT
Perhaps Perry Stepp would kindly explain what exactly
is wrong with the plausible hypothesis that Matthew and
Luke independently used Q sources not found in Mark?
Why assume that there's something inherently wrong with
such an hypothesis, especially when it has tremendous
explanatory value? In his prologue, Luke pretty much
admits that he had a range of sources available to him.
C. Tuckett has a nice piece, "The Existence of Q," in
a 1995 SNTS collection edited by R.A. Piper. It's
very difficult to explain Matthew-Luke agreements
(against Mark) by assuming that Luke had Matthew.
Consider, just for a few samples, Luke's striking
divergences from Matthew in the birth narratives,
the sermon on the mount/plain, and the passion/
resurrection-appearance narratives. See Stein's
*The Synoptic Problem* for straightforward reasons
for doubting that Luke had Matthew. As for a
denial of Markan priority, one must explain, among
many other things, what plausible reason there would
be to produce a gospel like Mark's in the presence
of Matthew's more well-rounded treatment. The
debate here must be settled by inference to the
best explanation, rather than by strict proof,
but still the assumptions of Markan priority
and Q sources have unsurpassed explanatory power.
--Paul Moser, Loyola University of Chicago.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:31 EDT