avi

Streeter , more, and a bit more.

Can you clarify which source has convinced you of the invalidity of Streeter's suggestion of
proto-Luke + Q = Luke?

Are you hinting that DeSilva's survey is inadequate, or incorrect?

Whose scholarship refutes Streeter? Gilmour?, Foster? , The Soulens? .

Rick Sumner

Farrer deservedly gets the credit for starting the ball rolling, but Goulder and Goodacre have done more to convince me.

To clarify, I'm referring to my rejection of Q. I'm not even aware of anyone who cites proto-Luke these days.

dog-on

Can a case for Paul, as the founder of Chrstianity, be traced through the Christian record?

avi

It appears to me that both Q and non-Q are simply theories, not facts, and as such, represent novel thinking, applied to a situation in which we lack sufficient detail of first century authorship. For all we know, Matthew, Mark, and Luke could represent three revisions of the same document, authored by the same unknown person. My question is WHEN did the very first edition of the first of these four gospels appear? More precisely, what is the evidence supporting one or another date for the first appearance of the first gospel?

I do not find Q, versus non-Q, to be of particular interest. I do find interesting, the possibility that Mark (if Mark was the first) was written in the second, rather than the first century--or, perhaps, the last decade of the first century, i.e. sometime well beyond the time of "John", supposed apostle, and also supposed mentor of Polycarp.

To the extent that Q analysis suggests a potential date for the synoptic gospels, I follow the story, otherwise, it is not a deal breaker for me, hence, I don't understand the furor, vis a vis Doherty's new book. Maybe I will, once I have read it. Thanks in any event, Rick, for bringing the issue to the fore.

dog-on

I always viewed the Q hypothesis as being helpful to making a case for oral tradition. I never quite understood why it would be necessary if the gospels were strictly literary creations.

avi

Thanks Dog-on, I don't know which came first, oral tradition, or gospel. I am waiting for Rick to answer your excellent question about Paul. What is this theory of yours, that Rick seems so eager to avoid discussing? Does Doherty's book discuss it?

dog-on

I am not really that conversant on Doherty's position, though I do believe that he does view Paul as the originator, as I do.

It seems, however, that Doherty tries to make his case while holding to the authenticity of the text.

I believe that the text, especially Paul, may have been significantly modified during the second century.

Rick Sumner

It's not central to Doherty's thesis, and Doherty's thesis could be adapted to Mark without Q. There was a discussion between Earl and Ken Olson on the Jesus Mysteries list on the matter some time ago, if you're inclined you could head over and look it up.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Not chasing your pet theory. My point, as I have repeatedly stated, had to do with whether or not we should follow avi in casually dismissing our sources.

dog-on

You don't have to chase anything, a simple yes or no would suffice.