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

Re: [XTalk] Questioning Q

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... Thankyou; I ll heed the advice! There is a kind of internal coherence about Q studies that I do find enjoyable. I wish I could believe Q did exist on
    Message 1 of 37 , Dec 22, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      On 21 Dec 2000, at 14:04, William E. Arnal wrote:

      > You know, Mark, I've been thinking for the last little while
      > that you may find yourself, after a while, CAUGHT in all
      > this Q murk. I am reminded of Pascal's lovely comment about
      > how one need not believe -- just go through the motions, and
      > belief will come. If you keep thinking inside the Q box, you
      > may after a while become too accustomed to it to get out.
      > Be careful!

      Thankyou; I'll heed the advice! There is a kind of internal
      coherence about Q studies that I do find enjoyable. I wish I could
      believe Q did exist on source-critical grounds; it's so interesting.

      > Anyway, the existence of Q is not predicated on its date, so
      > finding for a late date does not undercut it. (I knw you
      > know this.) And the date of, say, Matthew, does not directly
      > bear on the date of the traditions in it, so assuming Luke's
      > use of Matthw rather than of Q, you still need not associate
      > the units in the double traditions with a post-70 date. So
      > the13:34-35 could be pre- OR post-70 under EITHER
      > hypothesis. Right?

      Right. The reason I got into this pericope was actually in a different
      context, when I was writing about Marcan Priority. For it strikes
      me that in so far as indicators are present, the general situation
      seems to favour a (just) pre-70 date for Mark and a post-70 date for
      both Matthew and Luke, and that before one has begun looking at
      the internal literary questions. That just got me reflecting on Q too.

      Don't disagree or having anything further to add.

      Mark
      -----------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
      Birmingham B15 2TT
      United Kingdom

      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      Homepage
      http://NTGateway.com
      The New Testament Gateway
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... Thankyou; I ll heed the advice! There is a kind of internal coherence about Q studies that I do find enjoyable. I wish I could believe Q did exist on
      Message 37 of 37 , Dec 22, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        On 21 Dec 2000, at 14:04, William E. Arnal wrote:

        > You know, Mark, I've been thinking for the last little while
        > that you may find yourself, after a while, CAUGHT in all
        > this Q murk. I am reminded of Pascal's lovely comment about
        > how one need not believe -- just go through the motions, and
        > belief will come. If you keep thinking inside the Q box, you
        > may after a while become too accustomed to it to get out.
        > Be careful!

        Thankyou; I'll heed the advice! There is a kind of internal
        coherence about Q studies that I do find enjoyable. I wish I could
        believe Q did exist on source-critical grounds; it's so interesting.

        > Anyway, the existence of Q is not predicated on its date, so
        > finding for a late date does not undercut it. (I knw you
        > know this.) And the date of, say, Matthew, does not directly
        > bear on the date of the traditions in it, so assuming Luke's
        > use of Matthw rather than of Q, you still need not associate
        > the units in the double traditions with a post-70 date. So
        > the13:34-35 could be pre- OR post-70 under EITHER
        > hypothesis. Right?

        Right. The reason I got into this pericope was actually in a different
        context, when I was writing about Marcan Priority. For it strikes
        me that in so far as indicators are present, the general situation
        seems to favour a (just) pre-70 date for Mark and a post-70 date for
        both Matthew and Luke, and that before one has begun looking at
        the internal literary questions. That just got me reflecting on Q too.

        Don't disagree or having anything further to add.

        Mark
        -----------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
        Birmingham B15 2TT
        United Kingdom

        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
        Homepage
        http://NTGateway.com
        The New Testament Gateway
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.