11

A fundamental problem of this question is the a priori of "the current consensus of the writing of the gospels". Such a consensus does not exist. This two-sources-theory is just one of several attempts to reconcile the difficulties in explaining the synoptic problem, and admitted: fairly popular at that. There are other theories, which like this one have ...


9

Mark is more reliable.¹ Even if you were to completely discredit Mark², something is more than nothing. You cannot reasonably compare the accuracy of one document that exists with one that is only speculated to exist. Anybody that tries to tell you differently is selling something³. Answering your stated question is really that simple. In the world of ...


5

The existence of Q was first inferred by 19th century German theologians from a statement made by the 2nd century bishop Papias of Hierapolis. Papias is quoted in Eusebius' History of the Church as saying, "Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." (History of the Church, 3.39.16). The Germans pointed ...


4

Since the Gospel of Thomas was first discovered, scholars have been divided on whether the gospel was written in the second century or early in the first century. One view is based on the assumption that gnosticism could not have existed before about the second century, because Christian doctrine could not have split into two distinct streams so soon after ...


4

As one answer already noted, and your comment later in the question indicates there is not a anything like a real consensus to the how to solve the synoptic problem. In the question you mention the phrase: "as well as unique independent source material." One solution to the problem that is often overlooked is the idea that each of the authors wrote ...


3

There is no certain evidence that Q is earlier than Mark, although parts of it could be. Some scholars of the 'Q' hypothesis believe they have identified three distinct layers in Q, written over a period of time. The Didache, a community rule-manual of discipline on church order, is widely regarded as having existed, at least in its earliest form, earlier ...


3

Markan priority has very strong evidence and is held by almost all critical scholars. But although the two source theory (i.e. that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and Q but not each other) is the dominant position, it is not held as universally because of some nagging problems with it. You've found exactly one of these nagging problems. There ...


3

Premises of this response: There was no Q document (per the OP) Luke (writing to a gentile audience) used Matthew’s Gospel (written to a Jewish audience) as a source. For a more thorough discussion of the greater Jewish focus of Matthew, and why it indicates that Matthew preceded Luke, see my thoughts here. -- What Luke leaves out You have heard it said ...


2

From UBS5: The blue passage(s): Matthew 5:39-40 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ· ἀλλ᾿ ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα [σου], στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην· καὶ τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον· Luke 6:29 τῷ τύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱμάτιον καὶ ...


1

"How do those who reject Q explain Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-36?" I am a proponent of the sensus plenior approach, and reject Q. This is how I explain these particular differences. Jesus taught his disciples many things in many places. He often repeated the teaching using different words. The disciples did not remember his teaching. Jesus sent the ...


1

Yes, I suggest there is another option that makes better sense. For a thorough and scholarly treatment of the Synoptic problem I recommend John Wenham's book: Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke. He discusses eight different Synoptic theories. In the following I follow Wenham and many others in accepting the consensus of the church during the first 1900 years: ...


1

John Ashton says in 'History and Theology in New Testament Studies', published in The Nature of New Testament Theology, page 8, that this is a saying of triply dubious authenticity, but does not go on to explain what 'triply dubious' means. John J. Kilgallen says ('ACTS 20:35 AND THUCYDIDES 2.97.4', published in the Journal of Biblical Literature) It is ...


1

Egerton may be to John what Q is hypothetically to Matt/Luke. Wikipedia cites Jon B. Daniels (The Complete Gospels): "... suggestions that the Egerton Gospel served as a source for the authors of Mark and/or John also lack conclusive evidence. The most likely explanation for the Egerton Gospel's similarities and differences from the canonical gospels is ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible