I guess what hasn't been explained here is why one would need to assume
similarities in the Gospels need to be explained as borrowings from a
single text (oral or written) rather than collections of multiple ones. I
assume parsimony would be the reason, but that would not by itself justify
viewing Q as a kind of "core" gospel - after all, where did the rest of
the Synoptics come from, if not from other, multiple sources
supplementary to (or contradictory to) Q, which again leads one back
to multiple freely-circulating fragments of the Gospels as we have them.
As long as one is spinning out hypotheses, and since there is (seriously)
little at issue, why entertain one [Q] rather than many? That is, why
does the Q hypothesis have such status? If the answer is too involved to
summarize, maybe someone could throw out a few articles or books that
summarize the most contemporary work on Q etc.
- Re: Q Who?
- From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <email@example.com>
- Prev: Q
- Next: Q