Subject: Q? Anti-Q? Multi-Q?

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:35:21 -0500 (CDT)

I will admit that I had some trouble understanding Vinton Deering's
post on the subject of Q. But I also had a very strong reaction to
it, so I'm going to speak up despite being utterly benighted in some
respects. (Don't say it, folks!)

It may sound surprising, coming from me, but I think so far our
investigations of the "Q" phenomenon have been far too mechanical,
focusing primarily on the agreements and differences between Matthew
and Luke.

I think we need to look at the nature of the material, too. To me,
for example, it seems obvious that there is no single document "Q."
Why? Because some of the common material in Matthew and Luke is
clearly oral, while some (including, of course, the places where
the two agree exactly) came from a written source.

Oral Q probably includes also the material in common with the
Gospel of Thomas.

I also suspect that "M" and "L" are more complicated than we
suspect. I think we simply cannot analyse Synoptic sources
without paying more attention to the role of oral tradition.

Enough said. If you want more, try the "Oral Tradition" article
at the web site below.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)