Timeline for What is the evidence for the existence of the Q document?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 6, 2012 at 21:44 | history | edited | Jon Ericson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 62 characters in body
|
| Dec 6, 2012 at 21:39 | comment | added | Noah | It's too bad really, as an Aramaic version of Q attributed to Matthew (with the current Matthew being a misnomer) would otherwise be a lovely solution which would even agree with patristic testimony. But something like the John the Baptist section really looks like there has to be a Greek source. | |
| Dec 6, 2012 at 21:28 | comment | added | Jon Ericson | @Noah Snyder: That's a great point. I've incorporated it into the footnote. | |
| Dec 6, 2012 at 21:28 | history | edited | Jon Ericson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added Noah Snyder's comment.
|
| Dec 6, 2012 at 20:50 | comment | added | Noah | On footnote 2, Matthew and Luke agree a lot in Greek, a common Aramaic source does not really explain that. | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 17:46 | comment | added | Frank Luke | There are places where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark. See my answer here under Textual Evidence, #4, #5, and #6. | |
| Apr 14, 2012 at 4:35 | vote | accept | Bruce Alderman | ||
| Apr 6, 2012 at 17:59 | history | answered | Jon Ericson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |