Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul and the Gospels

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "John C. Hurd" <John.Hurd AT Squam.org>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul and the Gospels
  • Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:20:53 -0400


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.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page