From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Fri Oct 13 1995 - 14:51:10 EDT
In a message dated 95-10-13 14:35:04 EDT Carl W. Conrad writes:
>Thanks, Paul. This point of view, which may not be the majority opinion on
>our list but is certainly the majority opinion among NT scholars, needs to
>be re-asserted from time to time, especially in view of the most recent
>wave of right-wing fundamentalist hogwash.
>
I do not believe that the previous quote about "right-wing
fundamentalist hogwash" is very scholarly (an understatement). But laying
that aside, Carl, for over 1800 years the church has held a the Matthaean
priority and there isn't a shred of archaeological evidence for a 'Q'
document? Are you saying that now over 1800 years later we have all of a
sudden discovered something that hasn't any historical or archaeological
support?
The best scholars who have studied this and produced publications
regarding it (Dr. Robert Thomas, Eta Linneman, etc.) quote the above
statements which are uncontested among scholars today. It has been a problem
in the presentation of the 'Q' hypothesis, just as the missing transitional
forms are a problem for evolution.
I do not believe this is hogwash, rather it is honest scholarship.
Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:31 EDT