Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

323Re: [Synoptic-L] Q

Expand Messages
  • Tim Lewis
    Feb 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Anon/Joe? asked: I've read about the normally accepted views of Mark priority and Q,
      Mark priority without Q, Luke priority, or Matthew priority. If I
      didn't get everything wrong, I perceived that these views depended all
      on the affirmation that, at some point in history, two different
      writers had one and the same document (different one for each view).
      And my question is: is this affirmation likely historically???

      Tim: I think the question refers to the likelihood or unlikelihood that (at least) two Gospel authors had a copy (or perhaps an identical copy) of the first written Gospel rather than writing independently.

      The reply to such a question has to be that the Synoptic Problem as it is usually defined, already assumes that at least two of the Gospel texts must be literarily (inter)connected, hence the "problem" of ascertaining whose dependence on whom even if this is on an earlier document (proto-Gospel). Scholars who do not believe that any Gospel author used any previous written Gospels or proto-Gospels would generally be considered as denying that there is a synoptic problem. The synoptic problem is premised on a literary premise which assumes literary sources explain the similarities (but not necessarily excluding oral sources as well).

      I would refer the questioner to Stephen Carlson's website for a good intro:
      http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/

      Anon/Joe?: What do you/anyone reading this think about Q: existence, logic,
      evidence, history?

      Tim: As for Q, there is really no consensus here! I think most subscribers of this list have grave doubts about Q ever being a document. I don't even know who on this list would argue for it but perhaps they might speak for themselves.

      Tim Lewis.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: synoptic_joe
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:41 AM
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] Q


      Since I've just arrived to this list and haven't read all the
      conversations people have had so far, forgive me if I'm bringing up a
      boring or already discussed subject but...

      What do you/anyone reading this think about Q: existence, logic,
      evidence, history?

      I've read about the normally accepted views of Mark priority and Q,
      Mark priority without Q, Luke priority, or Matthew priority. If I
      didn't get everything wrong, I perceived that these views depended all
      on the affirmation that, at some point in history, two different
      writers had one and the same document (different one for each view).
      And my question is: is this affirmation likely historically???

      I also read about B.E. Wilson´s view of the Logia. I thought it wasn't
      bad.

      Any views on the subject?






      Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l



      SPONSORED LINKS Bible study library Bible study Bible study tool
      Christian bible study Online bible study Bible study lesson


      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

      a.. Visit your group "Synoptic" on the web.

      b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      Synoptic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------




      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/06

      ----------

      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/06


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic