However, there are significantly different elements in gLuke not found in gMatthew, such as:Because we don't generally hypothesize lost documents to explain things equally well as existing documents we already have. The lost document has to provide a significantly different and better explanation for us to need to hypothesize it in the first place.
At no point will I be able to show that Matthew has a property that your hypothetical document does not (well, other than Matthew actually existing). You can always take over a property Matthew has and attribute it to your lost document as well.
gLuke 11:41a: "But give alms inwardly, and behold, all things are clean to you."
which is not what "Matthew" wrote:
gMatthew 23:26 "... First cleanse the inside of the cup, that the outside also may be clean"
And
gLuke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother ... brothers and sisters ..., he cannot be my disciple."
which is not what "Matthew" wrote:
gMatthew 10:37 "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."
But this is why I did on my initial posts on that matter (Section A to D). Actually, I exposed "smoking guns" for the existence of Q and for "Luke" not knowing about gMatthew.I mean you can show other people that a different document is called for).
I did not decide what is Q by what I want, but according to:This is the point I made in my last post, which I don't think has sunk in with you yet. So please, do think about it and about all the Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke and how many of those (and the pericopes in which they are set) you want to add to Q.
...
When Q is intermediary between gMark and gluke & gMatthew, "minor agreements" can be explained by the Q author getting a passage from gMark, then injecting in it new wording not in gMark, which got copied by "Luke" & "Matthew" (with one or both, most of the time, still adding up more dissimilar items, including from gMark "root" passage).
I read from Mark Goodacre online book Chapter 6 THE CASE AGAINST Q"Can you answer my question I asked earlier:
I know of several strong cases for Matthew’s greater primitivity and zero for Luke’s.What are these strong cases?
Some observations:
1) Goodacre is showing the scholars defender of Q made bad or non-sequitur arguments. I agree with him for almost most of them, but that does not make the Farrer Theory true.
2) Goodacre uses a deluge of words in order to come to the conclusion he wants, even if the little evidence he interprets is far from being a smoking gun. He also makes assumptions.
3) In the Summary on page 133 "The 'M' material all looks like 'Luke-displeasing' material just what we would expect on the Farrer Theory"
But that's not what I found:
- gMatthew 20:1-16, never too late to join (or rejoin) the Christian brotherhood (see gLuke 15:11-32)
- gMatthew 25:35-45, charity to the destitute and poor, in order to enter the Kingdom (see gLuke 6:34-35,10:30-37,11:5-8,14:13-14,16:9,19-28,19:8-9)
- gMatthew 27:19, a Roman woman declaring Jesus as a "righteous/just" ('dikaios') man (see gLuke 23:47, a centurion saying the same). This could not have been missed by "Luke", considering the pro-feminist and pro-Roman stance of the gospel & 'Acts'
4) On page 141 "For if one assumes the Farrer theory, Q is constituted by those parts of Matthew's non-Markan material that appealed to Luke."
But that's not what I found:
gLuke 16:17 "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." (parallel in gMatthew 5:18)
...
If "Luke" had gMatthew instead of Q, why would he/she insert what hurts and ignore what pleases?
Cordially, Bernard