Ad
related to: luke and matthew q
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
However, the verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke is so close in some parts of the double tradition that the most reasonable explanation for this agreement is common dependence on a written source or sources. Even if Matthew and Luke are independent (see Marcan priority), the Q hypothesis states that they used a common document. Arguments ...
According to B. H. Streeter's analysis the non-Marcan matter in Luke has to be distinguished into at least two sources, Q and L.In a similar way he argued that Matthew used a peculiar source, which we may style M, as well as Q. Luke did not know M, and Matthew did not know L. Source M has the Judaistic character (see the Gospel according to the Hebrews), and it suggests a Jerusalem origin ...
When similar changes occur in double tradition material, which according to the 2SH are the result of Matthew and Luke relying on Q, they usually show Luke converging on Matthew. [ 7 ] Pierson Parker in 1940 suggested that the non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews was the second source used in the Gospel of Luke. [ 8 ]
(Mark–Q/Matthew) A hybrid of Two-source and Farrer. Q may be limited to sayings, may be in Aramaic, and may also be a source for Mark. Wilke (Mark–Luke) Double tradition explained entirely by Matthew's use of Luke. Four-source (Mark–Q/M/L) Matthew and Luke used Q. Only Matthew used M and only Luke used L. Matthaean priority: Two‑gospel ...
The double tradition is then simply portions of Matthew that Luke chose to repeat, so there is no need for Q. [20] A hybrid of these two hypotheses is the three-source hypothesis, which posits three sources for Luke: Mark, Q, and Matthew.
The three-source hypothesis is a candidate solution to the synoptic problem.It combines aspects of the two-source hypothesis and the Farrer hypothesis.It states that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark and a sayings collection as primary sources, but that the Gospel of Luke also used the Gospel of Matthew as a subsidiary source.
Since Matthew was the primary source for Luke, and Matthew's gospel (the only published gospel at the time) would have been well known to Peter, he mostly would have preached on the contents of Matthew. Knowing Matthew better than Luke, Peter was more likely to mention details found in Matthew and not Luke than vice versa. This would explain ...
The Q hypothesis was formed to answer the question of where Matthew and Luke got their common material if they did not know of each other's gospels. But if Luke had read Matthew, the question that Q answers does not arise. We have no evidence from early Christian writings that anything like Q ever existed.