If Luke knew Matthew, why does he never use Matthews additions to Mark in triple tradition material?
Q: What is the problem with Mark-Q overlaps? One of the standard arguments for the existence of Q is that Matthew and Luke never agree with each other against Mark in order and (substantial amounts of) wording. This argument is false: Matthew and Luke do have major agreements between each other against Mark, in both wording and order. The theory of an overlapping between Mark and Q obscures this observation, leaving the standard argument unchallenged. It is because of recourse to Mark-Q overlaps that those sceptical about Q have to lay stress instead on the Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. Q: Why are the Minor Agreements problematic for the Q Hypothesis? The Q Hypothesis is founded on the supposed impossibility of Luke’s dependence on Matthew. One way of testing this is to look for signs of Luke’s knowledge of Matthew in the triple tradition material (= material common to all three synoptics). Among the thousand or so Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke aga
Related Questions
- At best, the Minor Agreements can only show Lukes subsidiary dependence on Matthew in triple tradition passages. Surely, by analogy, they can at best only show Lukes subsidiary dependence on Matthew in Q material?
- If Luke knew Matthew, why does he never use Matthews additions to Mark in triple tradition material?
- What are Evangelist symbols of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
