It seems that you are once again appealing to an authority to support a position you have taken. Could you put the argument you quoted from Bauer into your own words?personally, if there is something I would assume under any Gospel X priority, is that Matthew follows Luke and not vice versa. Bruno Bauer has given a good example of this just talking about Luke 7:18 (being in its natural place in Luke, while being terribly dislocated in Matthew). See here:Luke's use of MatthewThe riddle is solved. Luke, the first successor of Mark, is also the first to have dared to assume, besides the mere fact of baptism, a personal connection of the Baptist with Jesus as the Messiah and to include it in the type of the Gospel history. But he still has him doubtingly ask whether he is the Messiah. Matthew is bolder, already drawn much more into the train that led the religious category of their completion, and ascribes to the Baptist the knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah even before the baptism; he should therefore actually leave out the story of his message, but he writes it, without noticing the contradiction, following Luke, because he is interested in the statements that Jesus is said to have made on the occasion of the Baptist’s doubting question.
(my bold)
So yes, I conclude that the hypothesis Q is even worse than the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis.
In particular, where does Matthew ascribe to the Baptist the knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah even before the baptism, and what is the contradiction to which Bauer refers?
Best,
Ken
Yes, I've read Bauer's larger case in the given link and I see some severe problems with it, but I thought we'd start with the bit you quoted.
Statistics: Posted by Ken Olson — Fri Mar 08, 2024 11:26 am