So on the issue of Q, I was reading about the Farrer hypothesis that claims:
Mark -> Matthew
Mark + Matthew -> Luke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrer_hypothesis
I suppose it might also be:
Mark + Q -> Matthew
Mark + Matthew -> Luke
As I was looking at the similarity in content and sequence of the hypothesized Q material in Matthew and Luke, it is hard to believe that these gospels were independently taking quotes from Q. It seems much easier to believe that Luke used Matthew.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html
Why do scholars assume that Luke did not use Matthew? Did they assume that differences in the nativity stories implied independence? Why not assume that Luke was "correcting" Matthew to match the views of a particular Christian faction?
Mark -> Matthew
Mark + Matthew -> Luke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrer_hypothesis
I suppose it might also be:
Mark + Q -> Matthew
Mark + Matthew -> Luke
As I was looking at the similarity in content and sequence of the hypothesized Q material in Matthew and Luke, it is hard to believe that these gospels were independently taking quotes from Q. It seems much easier to believe that Luke used Matthew.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html
Why do scholars assume that Luke did not use Matthew? Did they assume that differences in the nativity stories implied independence? Why not assume that Luke was "correcting" Matthew to match the views of a particular Christian faction?