[Synoptic-L] Re: [XTalk] Re: Written Q
- Mark Goodacre wrote:
> ..... And a Luke who knows MatthewMark,
>and Q is one uncongenial to the following:
> ..... [ Occam's razor ]
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
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'.
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
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@...