[b-greek] Re: Q

From: Bryant J. Williams III (bjwvmw@com-pair.net)
Date: Thu Jul 19 2001 - 00:48:23 EDT


Dear Chet:

The question of Q is a matter of speculation since NO ONE has ever seen the
manuscript, let alone a copy of a manuscript. Most modern day scholarship,
based on false presuppositions, lend themselves toward there being a Q, but
not one of them can come to any consensus to speak of as to what Q consists
of. Remember that Q = source and the false assumption is that Matthew, or
whoever, wrote down the sayings of Jesus and that this source-saying
provided the basis for Matthew, possibly Luke. I am not convinced of any
evidence that there actually exists a document called Q. I might also being
to remembrance that many so-called theories have now been proven wrong. Let
us continue the search.

Furthermore, one still has to deal with the quote regarding Matthew writing
his gospel originally (?) in Hebrew (Aramaic). Actually, Matthew could have
written his gospel in Greek, then put the same gospel into the Hebrew
(Aramaic) language. I discount any theory that makes Matthew's gospel as
being written by a community of Matthean disciples. There is too much
information found in Matthew that reflects an eyewitness account.

En Xpistw

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chet Creider" <creider@csd.uwo.ca>
To: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 7:57 AM
Subject: [b-greek] Q


> Two questions:
>
> 1. John Painter, _Mark's Gospel_ (Routledge, 1997) writes (p.4):
> Scholars today are convinced that Matthew was written in Greek, not
> in Hebrew or Aramaic. He later states that Mark was written in Greek.
> Is there a scholarly consensus today that all four gospels were written
> originally in Greek (i.e. not translated from Hebrew or Aramaic)? This
> is not to preclude the use of a collection of sayings which may have been
> written originally in some language other than Greek.
>
> 2. What is the current status of scholarship with respect to Q? Davies
and Allison, in their commentary on Matthew, after referring to various
reconstructions
> write (p.121), `there is a considerable measure of agreement'. But then
they
> add in footnote: `...we remain doubtful as to whether anyone has
successfully
> reconstructed the whole tradition-history of Q. For a review of attempts
see
> Kloppenborg, "Tradition".' Unfortunately, the expansion of the
Kloppenborg
> reference is missing in the bibliography/list of abbreviations. If
someone
> can supply it, I would be grateful.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Chet Creider
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [bjwvmw@com-pair.net]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
>
>


---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:01 EDT