Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Q (was Paul and the Gospels)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Chris Cutler" <Chrisc AT powercall.co.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Q (was Paul and the Gospels)
  • Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 19:20:31 +0100


Licia quotes C S Lewis:
[snip]
"...Everywhere,
except in theology, there has been a vigorous growth of
scepticism about scepticism itself."
and comments:
I have a good deal of sympathy with this view. 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.

Chris

Physicists once described the atom as a 'plum pudding' - a blob of
positively charged nucleus imbedded with negative electrons giving an
overall neutral atom. Later a better model was postulated, reminding us of
the solar system - positive nucleus with negative electrons whizzing round.
Now we have complex equations which if one can understand the equations,
one has a better understanding of the atom. But it is still a model.

My point is that IMO it doesn't actually matter whether anything like Q
ever existed. The important thing is that it exists now as a model. If that
model helps us understand the Gospels we have then let's use it. If
studying Q gives us a better model and therefore a better understanding all
to the good. We can always throw Q away when it has served it's purpose.

-------------------------
Chris Cutler
"Auditeur Libre"

What liberates is the knowledge of who we were, what we became; where we
were, whereinto we have been thrown; whereto we speed, wherefrom we are
redeemmed; what birth is, and what rebirth." (Exc. Theod. 78.2)




  • Re: Q (was Paul and the Gospels), Chris Cutler, 04/07/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page