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

Re: Fw: [Synoptic-L] Re: The Q Position

Expand Messages
  • Jim Deardorff
    ... David, The underlying assumptions could lie at the root of the problem. By opting for the 2SH and ignoring the potential validity of the AH, these
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 25, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      At 12:12 PM 6/25/99 -0400, David C. Hindley wrote:
      >Ron Price said:
      >
      >> My concern about the publications of the Q theorists is that they
      >>appear to be over-confident, especially in claiming to be able to
      >>distinguish three editions of a document of which there is not a single
      >>extant copy. ...

      >When you say "editions" do you mean "strata," or "recension"? As for the
      >theories that postulate layers of tradition (strata), they appear to be based
      >on commonplace assumptions used in source and redaction criticism. ...

      David,

      The underlying assumptions could lie at the root of the problem. By opting
      for the 2SH and ignoring the potential validity of the AH, these
      source/redaction critics overlook viable solutions. Consider that several
      strata within Matthew itself can be found, from the AH viewpoint:
      (1) Text faithfully transcribed from AMt's source,
      (2) Material from his source that AMt redacted in part,
      (3) Text in his gospel that AMt either invented on his own or brought in
      from other sources, and
      (4) Textual content later altered by the translator of Semitic Matthew
      into Greek.

      Now, much of Matthew was omitted when Mark was written, but was then
      reinstated into Luke, thereby forming Q. Therefore, Q, and especially
      Matthew's version of it, should exhibit such strata.

      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.