Antithesis
New Member
I'd posted this in Scholar DIR earlier, but I've received PMs from multiple users saying they couldn't reply there, and one of them suggested I repost it here. So here goes.
First, I will list the cases for the Q document according to Wikipedia:
Edit: maybe Scriptural Debates was a better place for this after all. Could I request a move?
First, I will list the cases for the Q document according to Wikipedia:
All of these, now, can be explained very simply without any Q document. Here's how: simply assume that Matthew borrows text from Mark, and that Luke borrows text from both Mark and Matthew. This seems like a much simpler explanation to me, as it doesn't introduce some mysterious document that was popular enough to have been in the hands of the authors of both Matthew and Luke, but which has never been cited by anyone. What's wrong with this logic?
- Sometimes the exactness in wording is striking, for example, Matthew 6:24 = Luke 16:13 (27 and 28 Greek words respectively); Matthew 7:78 = Luke 11:910 (24 Greek words each).
- There is sometimes commonality in order between the two, for example Sermon on the Plain/Sermon on the Mount.
- The presence of doublets, where Matthew and Luke sometimes each present two versions of a similar saying but in different context, only one of those versions appearing in Mark. Doublets may be considered a sign of two written sources, i.e., Mark and Q.
- Luke mentions that he knows of other written sources of Jesus' life, and that he has investigated in order to gather the most information.
Edit: maybe Scriptural Debates was a better place for this after all. Could I request a move?
Last edited: