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

Re Unknown document in Q 1

Expand Messages
  • ronmccann1
    Egad, Frank, I had expected to be thoroughly attacked, dismembered, chewed up, swallowed and digested AFTER I gave you a look at this material, not BEFORE.
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 26 3:17 PM
      Egad, Frank, I had expected to be thoroughly attacked, dismembered,
      chewed up, swallowed and digested AFTER I gave you a look at this
      material, not BEFORE.
      Gimme a break. I was trying to tell you where I was coming from on
      this thesis and set up the groundwork for my particular approach
      (Must be that lutefisk.(g) Makes for ferocious debaters, I
      Nice systematic pre -argument evisceration, though. Really. (Ouch!)
      And thorough, and some fine points.
      Particularly devasting is your point that Q (speculative, and never a
      copy found) may be simply an artifact of scholarship. Anything
      dependant on the Q hypothesis is a chimera therefore- a willow the
      wisp. Then I come along and ask you to buy a second chimera- a
      hypothetical lost collection of Jesus's sayings by the Apostle
      Matthew, only attested to by Papias, which I have called (for want of
      a better title) "The Matthean Logia Collection". This, I have the
      gaul to ask you to believe was a document borrowed from by Thomas,
      the first Q authors and Mark in formulating their collections or
      Gospels. Incredibly, next I invoke a third suggestion and produce a
      third chimera- by dropping away what each of the three borrowed from
      our Matthean Logia collection and begging you to examinine what is
      left. What I said is that no particular patterns occur in that is
      left in Mark or Thomas. Thomas appears to simply have been an
      UNORGANIZED collection of Jesus sayings only strung to-gether by
      reminder "catchwords". I can't see any real order in what remains of
      the Thomas sayings. In Mark's case because it is a narrative gospel,
      we have the "telling of the tale" as opposed to a sayings collection
      and what remains, after deletion of the ML material, doesn't damage
      it much.
      The first of this E mail has been lost. It was addressed to Frank

      The big difference occurs when we make this play with our Q scholars'
      Q1. By strikling Thomas-matched sayings (think a moment- this usually
      adds the second or even third attestation) a complete document, where
      each isolated saying coheres to the next falls out. We get a
      continuous coherant- topic and thought, and continuous speech- as if
      a live address is being made and copied down verbaitum. Each line
      captures the ideas generated in the previous line and continues the
      thought and topic. NOT an isolated series of sayings. Rather a
      continuous speech that has been preserved verbatim in a document,
      then integrated from material at some later point with material from
      the ML collection. I'm going to reproduce the citations so you can
      see the "skipping of intervening verses" and therefore the
      impossibility that one line of one verse should carry on several
      intervening verses later with the resumption of the original thought,
      topic, subject and saying, unless this was once a coherant
      independant document broken up to create Q1.
      Spare me your fangs, Frank until I have at least advanced the thesis.
      (Damn I'm not looking foreward to my savaging.) You guys have no mercy

      (Ron McCann)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.