Search found 518 matches

by rgprice
Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:13 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.
Replies: 74
Views: 1664

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

to rgprice, I don't like "Q is dependant on gMark". For me, I would say that some sayings in Q show their authors knew about gMark. I think some Q sayings were collected very early. That process kept going for decades (with many sayings/narratives being created) up to even after gMark was known. Th...
by rgprice
Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:27 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion
Replies: 15
Views: 327

Re: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion

How did Justin even know how long a document had been around? Dialogue with Trypho: Then he told me frankly both his name and his family. "Trypho," says he, "I am called; and I am a Hebrew of the circumcision, and having escaped from the war lately carried on there, I am spending my days in Greece,...
by rgprice
Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:36 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion
Replies: 15
Views: 327

Re: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion

Good stuff Peter, thank you. I'm of the mind that Luke/Acts had to have come after Justin but before Irenaeus, giving a pretty narrow window, which is as you say, between about 140 and 175. I agree with that entirely. To me, the big question is Matthew. Was Matthew also produced in this window betwe...
by rgprice
Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:13 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.
Replies: 74
Views: 1664

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

In every place were either Luke or Matthew follows Mark, then GQ would follow Mark. I understand the point that Mk -> GQ, GQ -> Lk, and GQ -> Mt explains every possible set of Mk // Lk, Mk // Mt, or Lk // Mt parallels. Everything in 2 out of 3 gospels could be explained as being present in GQ. Igno...
by rgprice
Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:33 am
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.
Replies: 74
Views: 1664

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Of course they do in a general sense: parts of Mark and (at least) part of Q stand together both in Matthew and Luke. Absolutely true. But it feels like you did not understand my point about Mark 6.8 and Luke/Q 9.3 (IQP 10.4): Mark: staff, yes; sandals, yes. Matthew: staff, no; sandals, no. Luke: s...
by rgprice
Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:14 am
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.
Replies: 74
Views: 1664

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

You're basically saying that if you take a new Gospel derived from Mark and separate the new material from the old, then you arrive at a potential Q source. I'm saying you don't. I am saying that my hypothetical proposal requires there to be two separate documents, not just one. There could be any ...
by rgprice
Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:36 am
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.
Replies: 74
Views: 1664

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

One last stab at this. The diagram that BM drew with the dotted line is more accurately represented as the following: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/images/MQMLa.png There is no such thing as a dotted line. A dotted line is meaningless. If Q is derived from Mark, then that's that. So, what BM is ...
by rgprice
Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:07 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.
Replies: 74
Views: 1664

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

No, Ben, what you are saying is this: We have verses of Mark: (a, b, c, d, e, f, g) Someone reads Mark and produces the following sayings to augment the dialog of Mark: (a', b', c', d', e') Now, you are claiming that there is a difference between (a, b, c, d, e, f, g) + (a', b', c', d', e') and (a, ...
by rgprice
Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:28 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.
Replies: 74
Views: 1664

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Both Matthew 9.1-8 and Luke 5.17-26 contain the healing of a paralytic in common with Mark 2.1-12. The IQP reconstruction of Q lacks any such pericope. Therefore, on my proposal, Matthew and Luke cannot have derived their versions of this story from Q; it does not exist in Q. Rather, they had to ha...
by rgprice
Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:26 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.
Replies: 74
Views: 1664

Re: Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

Does this work with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, too? If Matthew knew and used Mark, then there is no need for Luke to have known and used both Matthew and Mark? The Farrer Theory dies before it is even born? No, because Luke contains agreements with with Mark against Matthew. And look at that highligh...