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

Re: Arguments for Q

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 4/29/1999 6:10:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, M.S.GOODACRE@bham.ac.uk writes:
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 29, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 4/29/1999 6:10:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      M.S.GOODACRE@... writes:

      <<
      (2) The argument from the distinctiveness of Q: Q is very different from
      Matthew and from Luke. There is 'space' between the theology, history,
      genre
      and character of Q and the theology, history, genre and character of the
      Synoptics. Q makes is presence felt.

      [snip]
      The latter [the above] argument is becoming steadily more prominent through
      the rise of Q research as a discipline in itself, a discipline that studies
      Q not as "source" but as "text" and carries out careful, erudite research on
      its genre, its
      composition, its redaction-history, its theology, its style. I would guess
      that this argument, from the alleged distinctiveness of Q, is the one that
      is
      most prominent in the minds of those engaging in research on Q.>>

      While I don't doubt that the above argument for Q is in fact present and
      operative in contemporary research, I really wonder whether it is supported
      by enough (even) prima facie evidence to take it seriously as an argument. I
      am of the opinion that counter-evidence, i.e., evidence against the
      distinctiveness of "Q" material with respect to Matt abounds. Indeed, from
      the time of Austin Farrer's famous "dispensing with Q" article, it has been
      pointed out that Q material is not at all easy to distinguish from typically
      Matthean modes of thought.

      << I would predict that these latter two arguments will rise steadily in
      importance in the future. Those who are not convinced by the Q theory
      ignore
      these at their peril.>>

      Mark, could you give an example of what is presented as evidence of the
      "distinctiveness of Q" with respect to Matthew by those who argue in this
      way? I would hope that not much is made out of the generic difference of the
      two, since that really would presuppose quod erat demonstrandum. Is much of
      the reasoning supporting this argument in fact circular in this manner?

      Leonard Maluf
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.