Date: Fri Oct 13 1995 - 17:31:09 EDT
Perry Stepp suggested that a better alternative to Q is that Luke had a copy
I would quote a statement George Caird made in Oxford in 1983, "The best
evidence for Q is the total implausability of either of the alternatives."
If Luke had Matthew what he did to the birth naratives is appalling. What he
did to the sermon on the mount and the model prayer is strange. What he did
to the passion and the resurrection appearances leaves a lot of questions.
Simply look at the story of Centurion's servant in Mt.8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10.
Where Matthew said that the Centurion came to Jesus, Luke says that he was
wrong, he sent the Jews because he was too modest to come himself (vs.7)!
As much as Luke loved parables, he had no interest in those beautiful
parables of the Kingdom!
Compare Luke 14:25-33 with Matthew 10:37-38. Luke found the saying of Jesus,
"He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who
loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not
take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
He said to himself, "I think that I'll toughen it up a bit."
So he wrote, "If any one come to me and does not hate his own father and
mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his won
life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come
after me, cannot be my disciple."
Luke read Matthew 12:28 "But if it is by the Spirit of god that I cast out
demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." He then, with his noted
interest in the Holy Spirit, wrote, "But if it is by the finger of God that I
cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (11:20).
According to the count in Matthew, there are about 200 verses common to
Matthew and Luke not in Mark. Of those 72 verses are near verbatim so that
there must be some literary relationship. Others are loose. It seems to me
that we must say that there is/are document(s) behind these two gospels. It
seems to me impossible to explain the relationship any other way. If I
rejected that Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke, I would still have to
think that some source(s) were common to them. Else Luke has some very
strange editorial habits.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:31 EDT