>At 2:44 PM -0800 7/29/01, Steve Black wrote:
>>... What are the implications for the historical Jesus of either
>>the acceptance of Q
>> >(and particular conclusions of Q scholarship) or its rejection?
>Q tells us that Jesus was a teacher/wise man. Not much of anything else
>besides perhaps a mystical teacher...
It seems that this question has many answers, depending on what's meant.
Mack, I believe, would only include the earliest layer of Q,
excluding all later layers as inauthentic.
He also excludes (mostly) everything else.
With that we would arrive at a teacher/wise person scenario. (Mack's
If the later apocalyptic layers are included what would that then mean?
Is it reasonable to exclude everything except Q in constructing a HJ?
Is it reasonable to exclude everything except for the earliest layer
of Q in constructing a HJ?