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

[Synoptic-L] Re: [XTalk] Re: Written Q

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Mark, We ve been here before, so evidently my attempts to explain Occam s razor appear to have failed. :-( Let s try a different tack. It seems rather
    Message 1 of 1 , May 31, 2002
      Mark Goodacre wrote:

      > ..... And a Luke who knows Matthew
      >and Q is one uncongenial to the following:
      > ..... [ Occam's razor ]

      Mark,

      We've been here before, so evidently my attempts to explain Occam's
      razor appear to have failed. :-( Let's try a different tack.

      It seems rather inconsistent to imply that the theory of Luke knowing
      a written sayings source as well as Matthew is more complicated than
      Farrer.
      For when challenged on the topic of alternating primitivity, or when
      asked to explain how so many apparently authentic sayings turn up in
      Matthew penned a whole 50 years after Jesus' death, you resort to 'the
      living stream of oral tradition'. What is that, if not another source or
      set of sources? So when you invoke oral tradition to explain
      observations which the 3ST readily explains without it, you are in
      effect presenting a theory which is just as complicated.
      What's more, the 3ST sayings source can reasonably be linked to
      Papias' TA LOGIA, so the hypothesis can claim external historical
      support. The same cannot be said of 'written Q'.

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

      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.