Corpus-Paul

[yonder moynihan gillihan <ymgillih AT midway.uchicago.edu>]

T. Roche's comments about the ahistoricity of Q seem odd.  Source
criticism is nothing if not a process of attempting to reconstruct the
history of texts.  Do source critics fabricate "seams" in texts and
"evidence" of redactional activity because beyond all else they wish the
texts to be compilations of sources?  Or do theories last because they are
enduringly useful and convincing descriptions of what we have before us?
I would venture the latter, and would not be surprised to see Q endure as
a hypothetical explanation of how Lk and Mt came to be, even if
nothing of material or other textual evidence ever surfaces.
Forgive my non-Pauline comments, and happy Easter.
Yonder Gillihan