« Last post by rakovsky on Today at 04:42:15 PM »
So then if there was something written, it's more plausible that it was the mysterious Q, not Matthew.Why do you think that?
If Matthew and Luke share some passages with eachother (Q), but not some other passages (like one genealogy covering Jesus' mother's side and another covering the father's side), how does this make it more plausible that Luke did not use Matthew, but rather a written Q source?
It seems most likely to me that since Matthew was written before Luke and Luke talks about relying on a previous compilation, that Matthew was a source that he got the Q passages from. But for some differences, he had his own reasons for why he didn't use them. For example, he might choose to set his genealogy along a different parental line for a good reason, such as if he wanted to emphasize Jesus' paternal trace to King David, since kingship passed through the paternal line.
I see no persuasive reason why differences between Matthew and Luke mean that Luke did not use Matthew as a source, since Luke could have used it as a base but then made corrections or else preferred to say something different on some subject. Rather, my best guess is that Matthew was Luke's source. The church fathers did not mention a Q source, but rather suggested that Matthew's gospel was written first.