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

Re: [Synoptic-L] New article on Q and method

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.