corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: "Stevan Davies" <miser17 AT epix.net>
- To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
- Subject: Re: Paul and the Gospels
- Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 17:30:09 -0500
> From: Thomas P Roche <troche AT acsu.buffalo.edu>
> Of course, contrary to the blatherings of shopworn 19th century higher
> critics, 'Q' does not exist, being a fantasmic construct of those who
> deisre that the Biblical texts as they ARE not really be what they are,
> i.e., not really MEAN what they say they do. We might as well be
> discussing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
> If this list really be for the serious academic study of the Pauline
> epistles, it would be well to employ the same standards of real historical
> analysis that other is always applied by serious historians to other
> ancient texts.
Yonder Gillihan replied:
> 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.
They are odd comments to say the least. I suppose, if they are
applied to recent list discussions, we would have to say that the
breaking of 2 Cor etc. into hypothetical parts would also fall into
the 19th? 20th? century "fantasmic construct of those who
deisre that the Biblical texts as they ARE not really be what they
are."
If what he means to say is that Q does not now exist as a discreet
ancient manuscript, he will be happy to know that proponents of the
Q hypothesis agree with him.
Steve Davies
College Misericordia
-
Re: Paul and the Gospels
, (continued)
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, Micheal Palmer, 04/02/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, George Blaisdell, 04/02/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, Stevan Davies, 04/02/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, Thomas P Roche, 04/02/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, David C. Hindley, 04/02/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, Micheal Palmer, 04/03/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, yonder moynihan gillihan, 04/03/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, yonder moynihan gillihan, 04/04/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, Micheal Palmer, 04/04/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, Jim West, 04/04/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, Stevan Davies, 04/04/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, Stephen C. Carlson, 04/04/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, David C. Hindley, 04/04/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, Thomas P Roche, 04/05/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, Licia Kuenning, 04/06/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, Jim West, 04/06/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, Frank Glenn, 04/06/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, John C. Hurd, 04/06/1999
- Re: Paul and the Gospels, Thomas P Roche, 04/07/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.