Got it. Makes perfect sense.
"John C. Poirier" <poirier@...
Chuck Jones wonders about the logic of my statement: "I don't believe in Q, yet I believe that there probably is a sayings source lying in the background of the double tradition."
I'll try to explain it in a different way: Those who believe that Luke used Matthew, or Matthew used Luke, must (?) hold an opinion about where the first among those two gospels got the sayings. Now Goulder thinks that Matthew made many of them up. But what about those of us who don't think Matthew made them up, and who think Matthew likely derived them from a source? Would believing that imply that we believe in Q? Not according to the true definition of Q, which consists of two propositions: (1) that there was a sayings source behind the double tradition, and (2) that that source was used independently by Matthew and Luke. Believing in (1) but not (2) amounts to not believing in Q *per se*, although it amounts in believing in a source that looks like Q. The difference is not in what comprises the source, but in how it was transmitted to Matthew and Luke.
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]