"Protos" and Q (was re: Middle Terms)
- On 28 Oct 98 at 19:05, Stevan Davies wrote:
> The reliance of JSem on "protos" does bother me.I am interested by these comments. What do you mean by "the other "protos""?
> In fact though, what the JSem has done, whether
> it knows it or not (maybe it does) is to establish a "proto" that then
> will lead to the discovery of the other "protos." Putting this
> CONCLUSION as a PREMISE is not an impressive move.
Is the point that the Jesus Seminar establishes, say, that Q1 and Thomas1 are
more reliable sources, subsequently using them, partially at least, as a
plumb-line for judging authentic material in the secondary and tertiary strands
> > I suspect too that Q continues to remain popular because it seems to haveSteve replied:
> > something to offer everyone. As (I think) Jeff Peterson pointed out
> > recently, there are conservatives who are keen on Q because it can be used
> > to give us an early anchor into authentic Jesus material, while there are
> > less conservative scholars who are keen on Q because it offers us a witness
> > to a non-Passion oriented "trajectory" in early Christianity.
> I've no clue what "conservative" means here. But not important. SinceBy "conservative" I meant scholars of an evangelical bent who may be interested
> I assume we can agree that Jesus did not have a Passion-oriented
> perspective, then that aspect of Q doesn't give us new information
> that common-sense didn't already give us about the HJ.
in Q because of the early witness it might give us to reliable Jesus material.
I am thinking of scholars like Craig Blomberg who believe in Q but who are
sceptical about the historical value of, say, Thomas. With regard to the
matter of a Passion-oriented perspective, I was thinking more of the question
of "trajectories" within early Christianity than about Jesus' mindset.
Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham
Recommended New Testament Web Resources:
World Without Q: