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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Q

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Welcome to the Synoptic-L discussion list. Please append at least your first name and surname at the end of your contributions so we know who you are. ...
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 8, 2006
      Anon (Joe?) wrote:

      > Since I've just arrived to this list.....

      Welcome to the Synoptic-L discussion list.

      Please append at least your first name and surname at the end of your
      contributions so we know who you are.

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

      I'm one of the minority who think there is convincing evidence that the
      author of Luke's gospel had a copy of Matthew's gospel in front of him as
      one of his sources. Therefore I consider Q as normally understood to be an
      illusion. This conclusion is confirmed by the lack of a coherent structure
      in Q, and also by its muddled genre (sayings of John the Baptist followed by
      mixed narrative/sayings followed by a string of pure sayings).

      > 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'm not sure what you mean here. If you are asking whether it is likely that
      some gospel authors had more than one written source, my answer would be
      "Yes".

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

      Brian's source theory was a simple concept and quite fascinating.
      Unfortunately it did have some serious problems. For instance it posited a
      logia document which was around 50% bigger than the biggest extant NT
      document (Acts). Such a large "notebook" seems to me extremely unlikely.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Tim Lewis
      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
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 8, 2006
        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]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic In Response To: Tim Lewis From: Bruce In defining the Synoptic Problem, for those who think there is one, Tim had said: TIM: I think the question
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 9, 2006
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Tim Lewis
          From: Bruce

          In defining the Synoptic Problem, for those who think there is one, Tim had
          said:

          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).

          BRUCE: No misunderstanding is likely, but in a technical sense, I would take
          issue with "at least two of the Gospel texts." Surely it is "three." If we
          label the three Synoptics as A, B, C, then I think that solutions where one
          of the Synoptics stands apart, unconnected to either of the others, such as
          I would symbolize by the formula A | B, C (and its possible variants) would
          not be regarded as responding to the question as usually posed. Nor, as Tim
          points out, would solutions of the type A | B | C, where all three Synoptics
          arose independently of each other. The solutions available to the Synoptic
          Problem, on this understanding, and omitting complications due to the
          inclusion of other sources, are not the total theoretical 25, but only the
          trebly connected 18.

          To list the 18 (or the 25) is merely a matter of combinatorics. It is set
          forth in various places; my own version, hopefully a convenient one, will be
          found at http://www.umass.edu/wsp > Biblica > Synoptic > Theories.
          Corrections always welcome.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Research Professor of Chinese
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.