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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Discussing Q (was Dr. Trafford's argument for Q)

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 5/27/2002 3:26:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bj_traff@hotmail.com writes:
    Message 1 of 2 , May 27, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 5/27/2002 3:26:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      bj_traff@... writes:

      << Imagine, if you will, that we never had a copy, or even fragments of GMark
      to actually study. Instead we had only Matt and Luke to work with. Could we,
      in applying Form Critical methods to these two texts construct anything even
      approaching an accurate representation of what Mark actually looked like? The
      answer, quite plainly, is no, we could not.>>

      Not only so, but we would not in the least suspect the existence of a Markan
      source at the time of the writing of these two gospels. The two gospels are
      perfectly explicable on their own terms, and Luke in a relation of dependence
      on Matthew. This should give one pause about the validity of the hypothesis
      of Markan priority.

      << In fact, I believe that the most common response would be that few, if any
      would believe that Mark ever existed at all, and either Luke used Matthew, or
      vice versa.>>

      The belief that Mark did not exist at the time of the writing of Matthew and
      Luke is one that is still accessible to us today. One need not construct an
      unreal condition in order to acquire that insight.

      Leonard Maluf

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.