Re: Fw: [Synoptic-L] Re: The Q Position
- At 12:12 PM 6/25/99 -0400, David C. Hindley wrote:
>Ron Price said:David,
>> 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. ...
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
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.
Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm