Re: Remaining reasons for Q
- At 10:12 PM 10/26/98 -0500, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>Part of the problem that critics have with the supporters of the QI have a question on this, Stephen. Why should it be difficult to conceive
>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.
of ALk using Matthew nowadays, when theological commitment no longer
controls the debates?
Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm