Re: Pt 2: why Q fails the test

Date: Wed Oct 18 1995 - 14:37:20 EDT

Perry Stepp wrote,
>We *could* hypothesize that Q was actually a much larger >document than just
the non-Markan shared material. Perhaps >it was a large as (or larger than)
canonical Mk, with a passion >and resurrection narrative--that would at least
explain the >minor agreements. We could even hypothesize that Q is the
>source of the extra-gospel *logia*. All would be just as >logical and
plausible as the current Q consensus, if we may >even speak of such an

If you are talking like the wind, it may be a logical, but if you are looking
to the text for evidence Q makes good sense. The basic reason (and I repeat)
that I think the Q hypothesis makes sense is that when I translate Matthew
and Luke side by side pericope by pericope, it makes sense. No one can say
how long, how many documents, or even whether oral or written (I suspect both
with at least 72 verses in Mt being in written form) because the evidence in
the text is insufficient. But one thing is clear to me. The evidence is
sufficient to merit serious consideration of some comon source(s) behind Mt &
Lk beside Mark. The only thing left to do by Perry is to examine the text of
both point by point. If he has done that then the only thing left to do is
agree that we disagree and drop it.
Carlton Winbery

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:30 EDT