Corpus-Paul

[Thomas P Roche <troche AT acsu.buffalo.edu>]

Very simply, let me clarify.  People here are regularly citing 'Q', often
complete with chapter and verse citations, as though this document did in
fact exist, when it manifestly is the construct of scholars.  NOw I
realize that a small portion of biblical scholars working over a very
small period of the history of the christian church, in accordance with
thier 'higher critical' presuppostions and theories, have indeed
postulated such a document, and spilled large quantities of ink and
electrons defending it as though they had copious ancient documentary
evidence to back up their speculations.  My point, further, should be
clear-- I am a classicist/ ancient historian, and I have to say that it is
manifestly true that NO other series of ancient Greco-Roman texts has been
subjected to anything, anything, like the hypercritical dissections,
deconstructions, and reinterpretations, as has the various New Testament
books, all the while when it is also manifestly true that the number of
ancient mss for the NT and parts thereof simply dwarfs, by several score
times, the number of any such mss we possess for any other Greco-Roman
texts, most of which are also far younger.  Indeed, people read these
various texts without a thought to engaging in 'higher criticism' thereof,
while waxing intellectual with their hc formulations of the NT texts, and
denigrating those of us who do not hold to such flights of fancy.  Pooey.

Thomas Roche
SUNY Buffalo


On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Jim West wrote:

> At 11:25 PM 4/2/99 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> [snipped- seen]
> 
> >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.
> >
> >Thomas Roche
> 
> Thomas,
> Your very colorful prose does not serve to undo the Q hypothesis any more
> than saying that Q does exist over and over again proves its existence.
> What you offer, again in quite colorful and almost bewitching prose, is not
> any sort of proof or counter evidence.  In short, you simply scream that Q
> doesnt exist and imply that those who accept its existence don't quite
> measure up to scholarly stature.
> 
> I would like to suggest that there have been a great number of excellent
> scholars working for over a hundred years on the problem of Synoptic
> relationships who have reached conclusions contrary to yours and who deserve
> respect for their excellent work and not mere off the cuff dismissal.  So,
> please, do offer your own theory of synoptic relationships (perhaps on
> Synoptic list where the discussion more properly belongs).
> 
> Best,
> 
> and now back to your regularly scheduled Pauline programming,
> 
> Jim
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Jim West, ThD
> Petros Baptist Church- Pastor
> Quartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Bible
> 
> fax- 978-231-5986
> email- jwest AT highland.net
> web page-  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: troche AT acsu.buffalo.edu
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> 
>