(October 27, 2020 at 12:41 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's a hypothesis about how a literary tradition developed, not who said what to whom. It very much -is- the assertion of the markan two source hypothesis that mark was first, matthew depended on mark and added a few things, and luke depended on them both and added a few things.
The adding a few things, in both instances, is a Q or source candidate.
An interesting wrinkle, though, is that the author of luke contends to have been unware of any written gospels (but does appear to have written much of acts).
But why would there have to be a Q? Like I said earlier if we take that Mark wrote his gospel first and then Matthew copied him adding a few new stuff like let's say Sermon on the mount with Jesus saying "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" why would that necessarily need to be from the Q and not from Psalm 37:11 that goes "But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy peace and prosperity."?
Or why couldn't he put in stuff from other books?
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
