Surely the problem for the case against Q is that the Minor Agreements are just that, so minor?
Q: At best, the Minor Agreements can only show Luke’s subsidiary dependence on Matthew in triple tradition passages. Surely, by analogy, they can at best only show Luke’s subsidiary dependence on Matthew in Q material? This argument has been put forward by Tuckett, Friedrichsen and especially Neirynck. It needs to be remembered, in response, why it is that one stresses the Minor Agreements. It is because several of them represent the clearest and most obvious threat to the hypothesis of Matthew’s and Luke’s independence from each other, the hypothesis that necessitates belief in Q. If the Minor Agreements indeed betray Luke’s knowledge of Matthew, then the main reason for belief in Q has disappeared. Q: Surely the Minor Agreements can be explained by appeal to the notion of an earlier edition of Mark. Could not Matthew and Luke have used this “Ur-Marcus” rather than our Mark? The difficulty with this notion is that the Minor Agreements seem, on the whole, to be secondary to Mark. In ot
Related Questions
- Surely the Minor Agreements can be explained by appeal to the notion of an earlier edition of Mark. Could not Matthew and Luke have used this "Ur-Marcus" rather than our Mark?
- Surely the problem for the case against Q is that the Minor Agreements are just that, so minor?
- If there is minor problem in throttle body of the car, does changing air filter helps?
