Ken Olson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 6:49 amDid you read this in a work written by a proponent of Q who claimed this is something Q skeptics did or would have done, or did you ever read such an argument from a (scholarly) Q skeptic first hand?I was referring to an argument I read stating that a Q gospel would have been deemed unlike normal gospels in terms of format before Thomas was discovered.
I don't remember, but I suspect it was one of Bart Ehrman's books. The argument for Q was presented by providing the usual evidence, followed by a "But Wait" section wondering how come the supposed Q gospel is so different from the usual gospels, which would have been a problem until you consider the similar Thomas gospel, the argument said.
Goodacre says that he favors minimizing hypothetical sources. I think we shouldn't propose more hypothetical sources than we need to explain the evidence, but we shouldn't favor minimizing hypothetical sources. Perhaps I misunderstood Goodacre.This is something you sense, like a subjective impression? You seem to imply that Goodacre and other advocates of Farrer (i.e., Luke's use of Matt in addition to Mark) are dismissing arguments for Q in favor of implausible alternatives.I sense from some of the arguments against Q that the only thing that would meet the bar would be an actual manuscript of Q.
I am not an expert or even a credible hobbyist, just a spectator who relies on the likes of Ehrman and Kloppenborg. I can't comment on the Greek grammar and just take their word for it.Could you give your best case, or maybe your two or three best cases, to show that Luke's use of Matthew is implausible, and therefore we must deduce the existence of Q (i.e., where is the unreasonable burden of proof you allege)?
That said, I like the arguments www.alangarrow.com makes that IF we are to assume that Matthew and Luke knew each other, it seems more likely that Matthew copied from Luke rather than the opposite. (Alan Garrow has his own theory as you can tell but that's irrelevant as far as showing convincing reasons that Luke didn't know Matthew). There's also the issue of alternating primitivity and Luke's strange omissions of Matthean material.