Re: [Synoptic-L] three arguments that it is unlikely that Q exisited ?
"Brian E. Wilson" wrote:
>Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> Tim Reynolds wrote (concerning "Q") --
> >Plus (4) it's unnecessary.
> I agree that it is not necessary to posit Q (as defined by the 2DH)
> to solve the synoptic problem.
> I see the problem, however, not in Q being an *unnecessary* hypothetical
> entity, but in Q being a hypothetical document *as defined by the 2DH*.
> My suggestion is that there was a documentary source (not a continuous
> gospel, but a set of individual notes for teaching Jesus tradition)
> larger than any synoptic gospel and containing virtually all the
> material in them (in Greek), and that each synoptic gospel is basically
> a cut-down version of this document.
> In other words, think of "Q" as vastly expanded to include virtually
> everything in the synoptic gospels, and of each synoptic gospel being
> produced by connecting together an independent edited selection of self-
> contained units of Jesus tradition from this.
> Best wishes,
> BRIAN WILSON
> >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/
> Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
> > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
> > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...