Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

They sure hoped not, that was unthinkable. The Christian social-gospel was more important and valuable than the actual role Jesus played in the establishment of it. What do you think of this? I prefer to not ignore any hypothesis because of the possibility that it comes with a hidden agenda. That c...

I call this this approach that Sanders summarizes as 'nothing was ever omitted and nothing was ever created' the conservation of matter and energy approach to the synoptic problem. Thanks for the excerpts. It's a fair criticism but I never took that tendency literally as a principle, but rather a m...

The classic argument for Q is that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark (but not each other). It is difficult to speak confidently about 'Q' when the double tradition material appears in *Ev and Mt already, for Luke to use there. Of course, the two source hypothesis (with Q) does deserve consid...

The classic argument for Q is that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark (but not each other). It is difficult to speak confidently about 'Q' when the double tradition material appears in *Ev and Mt already, for Luke to use there. Of course, the two source hypothesis (with Q) does deserve consid...

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 8:50 am I don't yet know the answer, but I am most often looking at the gospel relationships as follows:

Mk -> *Ev
Mk and/or *Ev -> Jn
*Ev and maybe Mk -> Mt

Then finally Luke is aware of all the preceding gospels:

Mk -> Lk
*Ev -> Lk
Mt -> Lk
Jn -> Lk

No Q?

I was referring to an argument I read stating that a Q gospel would have been deemed unlike normal gospels in terms of format before Thomas was discovered. Did you read this in a work written by a proponent of Q who claimed this is something Q skeptics did or would have done, or did you ever read s...

the numerous surprising omissions in Luke (if he knew Matthew) The problem I had last year with the statement above in yellow was pretty narrow. If Luke knew Matthew , and he omitted some attractive material in Matthew from his own gospel, then that surprises some oberservers. There is no possibili...

First, Q is not (just) a saying gospel... Obviously. But it is mostly a sayings gospel. Second, could you cite and quote any scholar prior to the discovery or publication of The Gospel of Thomas who argued against the existence of Q on the grounds that it was a collection of sayings and collections...

the numerous surprising omissions in Luke (if he knew Matthew) It seems intuitive to me that real things with fixed features are more likely to have surprising features than hypothetical things crafted to avoid surprise ... The hypothetical Q gospel also has a surprising feature: it is a sayings go...

My impression is that Q adherence reflects a robust tolerance for potential false positives (erroneously "detecting" a document that never existed). Some choice needs to be made, and why a consensus formed favoring false-negative avoidance isn't clear. If we have both (1) indicators that ...