tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6222985737409270503.post9183530151518218588..comments2023-10-25T09:42:33.046-05:00Comments on revJohn: To Q or Not to Q? That Is the Question.revJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09640350978332475074noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6222985737409270503.post-7177877898692136142009-09-07T18:57:03.142-05:002009-09-07T18:57:03.142-05:00John, thanks for dropping by and adding a comment....John, thanks for dropping by and adding a comment. I will make sure and call attention to your blog and posts that you noted.revJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09640350978332475074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6222985737409270503.post-76726828872591755922009-09-07T11:36:13.016-05:002009-09-07T11:36:13.016-05:00A very interesting topic, isn't it?
Another w...A very interesting topic, isn't it?<br /><br />Another way to address the question: do one's own homework. Work through the evidence in hand and test hypotheses against it.<br /><br />That's what I was taught to do in seminary.<br /><br />For an example of what I mean:<br /><br />http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/08/a-test-comparison-of-the-double-and-triple-synoptic-tradition-part-1.html<br /><br />Scroll up from there. The conclusion:<br /><br />http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/09/a-comparison-of-doubly-and-triply-attested-synoptic-tradition-part-6.html<br /><br />The material I work through raises questions about the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark they worked from. Nor is it clear why "Q" has to be invoked, as it often is, to explain the variation across the parallel passages. <br /><br />In short, when you work with the evidence, all of the major theories seem a bit wobbly.John Hobbinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17011346264727684917noreply@blogger.com