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

Re: Remaining reasons for Q

Expand Messages
  • Jim Deardorff
    ... I have a question on this, Stephen. Why should it be difficult to conceive of ALk using Matthew nowadays, when theological commitment no longer controls
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 27, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:12 PM 10/26/98 -0500, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

      >Part of the problem that critics have with the supporters of the Q
      >hypothesis is that in a pinch the Q supporters will often concede
      >that a particular argument for Q is groundless but there are other
      >(unspecified) reasons for believing in Q. For example, Q was
      >originally posited largely as it is now by C.H.Weisse in 1838
      >because of Schleiermacher's interpretation of Papias' LOGIA as
      >referring to a sayings collection. This interpretation is now
      >almost universally abandoned, and according to Hawkins (1909)
      >the siglum Q was adopted over the previous term "logia" precisely
      >to avoid begging the question of Papias' support.
      >
      >As another example, Q is now held to be probable because it is
      >very difficuly to conceive of Luke's use of Matthew.

      I have a question on this, Stephen. Why should it be difficult to conceive
      of ALk using Matthew nowadays, when theological commitment no longer
      controls the debates?

      Jim Deardorff
      Corvallis, Oregon
      E-mail: deardorj@...
      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.