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

New article on Q and method

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology Francis Watson New Testament Studies (2009), 55:397-415 Abstract Arguments for the Q hypothesis have changed little
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      "Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology"
      Francis Watson
      New Testament Studies (2009), 55:397-415

      Abstract
      Arguments for the Q hypothesis have changed little since B. H. Streeter. The
      purpose of this article is not to advocate an alternative hypothesis but to
      argue that, if the Q hypothesis is to be sustained, the unlikelihood of
      Luke's dependence on Matthew must be demonstrated by a systematic and
      comprehensive reconstruction of the redactional procedures entailed in the
      two hypotheses. The Q hypothesis will have been verified if (and only if) it
      generates a more plausible account of the Matthean and Lukan redaction of
      Mark and Q than the corresponding account of Luke's use of Mark and Matthew.



      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      --------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:wie@...
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
    • Chuck Jones
      Amen, amen, and amen. It must, and it does. Rev. Chuck JonesAtlanta, Georgia ... From: Wieland Willker Subject: [Synoptic-L] New article on
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Amen, amen, and amen.

        It must, and it does.

        Rev. Chuck JonesAtlanta, Georgia

        --- On Tue, 11/3/09, Wieland Willker <wie@...> wrote:

        From: Wieland Willker <wie@...>
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] New article on Q and method
        To: "Synoptic-L" <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 4:42 AM

        "Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology"

        Francis Watson

        New Testament Studies (2009), 55:397-415

        Abstract

        Arguments for the Q hypothesis have changed little since B. H. Streeter. The

        purpose of this article is not to advocate an alternative hypothesis but to

        argue that, if the Q hypothesis is to be sustained, the unlikelihood of

        Luke's dependence on Matthew must be demonstrated by a systematic and

        comprehensive reconstruction of the redactional procedures entailed in the

        two hypotheses. The Q hypothesis will have been verified if (and only if) it

        generates a more plausible account of the Matthean and Lukan redaction of

        Mark and Q than the corresponding account of Luke's use of Mark and Matthew.



        Best wishes

        Wieland






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ron Price
        ... Thanks to Wieland for passing on this information. The argument in the second sentence in the abstract above is probably true (depending on one s
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 3, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          > "Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology"
          > Francis Watson
          > New Testament Studies (2009), 55:397-415
          >
          > Abstract
          > Arguments for the Q hypothesis have changed little since B. H. Streeter. The
          > purpose of this article is not to advocate an alternative hypothesis but to
          > argue that, if the Q hypothesis is to be sustained, the unlikelihood of
          > Luke's dependence on Matthew must be demonstrated by a systematic and
          > comprehensive reconstruction of the redactional procedures entailed in the
          > two hypotheses. The Q hypothesis will have been verified if (and only if) it
          > generates a more plausible account of the Matthean and Lukan redaction of
          > Mark and Q than the corresponding account of Luke's use of Mark and Matthew.

          Thanks to Wieland for passing on this information.

          The argument in the second sentence in the abstract above is probably true
          (depending on one's definition of 'sustained'). Unfortunately the third
          sentence is patently false. It is as if we were to claim that a careful
          comparison of the land area of Canada with that of China, showing that
          Canada is bigger, would verify that Canada is the biggest country in the
          world. It would not, for it is not.

          Watson should be given credit for implicitly discounting outlandish
          hypotheses. But why do he and so many others insist on seeing the problem in
          black and white? Can't they see that:

          *the weakness of the 2ST is primarily in its handling of narrative text, and
          the weakness of the FT is primarily in its handling of the sayings*?

          Isn't the solution obvious? It seemed obvious to me over 10 years ago, and
          my detailed studies since that time have confirmed it. The Double Tradition
          didn't all come from the same source!! (For the detailed arguments, start at
          the Web page below.)

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.