Corpus-Paul

["John C. Hurd" <John.Hurd AT Squam.org>]

When I was young and innocent, I assumed that the synoptic problem 
(specifically the Q
hypothesis) was one (like manuscript study) in which constructive discussion 
could
come from any scholarly source, whether critical or conservative.  Then in 
about 1959
or so I read a series of articles in Christianity Today expressing hostility 
to the
whole idea of synoptic source criticism.  As nearly as I could tell, the basic
stumbling block was that solutions offered to the synoptic problem involve 
one gospel
writer copying from another, and plagiarism, as everyone knows, is a sin.
    This anachronism may not characterize all schools of conservative thought.
Greetings to all!            --          John Hurd


> At 01:08 PM 4/5/99 -0400, Licia wrote:
> (snip)
> >That said, the Q hypothesis seems harmless to me provided we don't put more
> >weight on it than it will bear.  It doesn't seem incompatible with a 
> >conservative

> >handling of the texts.

And Frank Glenn replied:

>         Agreed.  And it does allow us to analyze the borders of the
> hermeneutic wrapped around the contents by the gospel writers.  Just as the
> Ten Commandments in either Exodus or Deuteronomy deserve their own reading
> without J,E,P,&D, the contents of Q deserve a close look standing alone.