In his Four Gospels, Burnett Streeter articulates his view of the sources of Luke and proto-Luke as follows: The hypothesis I propose in no way conflicts with the generally accepted view that Matthew and Luke are ultimately dependent not only on Mark but on Q—meaning by Q a single written source. Most, if not all, … Continue reading
See Kümmel 139. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:
See Kümmel 327. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:
Early Holtzmann Late Holtzmann See Kümmel 151–55. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:
See Kümmel 149–51. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:
See Baird 305; Kümmel 148–49. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series.
See Kümmel 146–48. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:
Herder thought that Mark most exactly reproduced UrevOr. Matthew reproduced it with expansions, and Luke, aware of these expansions, “wished to create ‘an actual historical account’ after a wholly Hellenistic pattern.” Herder also hypothesized that “[s]ome forty years later John . . . wrote an ‘echo of the earlier Gospels at a higher pitch’ which … Continue reading
Eichhorn does not appear to have named Q as such, but this part of his hypothesis fits what has come to be called Q. See Kümmel 77–79. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:
See Kümmel 76. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post: