4876Re: [Synoptic-L] excavating Q
- Oct 1, 2000At 04:48 PM 10/1/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Which Q hypothesis?q + mk = mt and lk (with M and L respectively)- this is the classical q
>According to W. Schmittals, Mark was a documentary ancestor of Q (sic),
>according to D. Zeller and H. T. Fleddermann Q was a documentary
>ancestor of Mark, according to M. -E. Boismard, neither Q nor Mk was
>used by Mt or Lk, according to R. Price Q was the ancestor of both Mt
>and Lk, but Mt was also the ancestor of Lk, according to Streeter Q was
>the ancestor of Mt and Lk but Mt was not the ancestor of Lk, and so on.
>What Q is depends on the hypothesis which contains it. To discuss the
>viability of Q meaningfully, we have to state fully the hypothesis to
>which Q belongs. The viability of Q varies from Q hypothesis to Q
>hypothesis. When someone writes of Q, or of the Q hypothesis, we should
>immediately raise the question of which Q, or which Q hypothesis, is
hypothesis. this is the one most people think of whn asked a simple
question about the issue.
>i didnt ask about all that now did i?
>If we do not do this, we do not know what Q contained. Did it contain
>the Baptism of Jesus, as Crossan, Grundmann, Harnack, Hoffmann, Hunter,
>Jacobson, Luz, Marshall, Schmithals, Shurmann, Streeter, Taylor
>Vasiliadis, Weiss and Zeller all insisted? Or did it not, as Kloppenborg
>and others maintain?
>everyone else seems to have understood it. perhaps you are having
>My answer to Jim's question is therefore that I do not understand it,
>and I suspect it is meaningless.
difficulty seeing the forest for the trees. again, it was a simple question-
notwithstanding all the equivocating thats going on in response to it.
still hoping to find diogenes out there somewhere....
"I like to eat lettuce, but I always eat only the heart; in my opinion the
leaves are for the pigs" S. Kierkegaard.
Jim West, ThD
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>