From: Nichael Cramer (nichael@sover.net)
Date: Fri Oct 13 1995 - 17:15:55 EDT
On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
I think that the problem --and the source of much of the antagonism-- is
not that the model of the Synoptics Saying Source is found wanting, but
rather that it tends to be dismissed out of hand.
One is of course perfectly free to choose not to believe in this model.
However it would seem to me that what one is not free to do is to pretend
that the model is anything other than what it is: namely, as was said
earlier, a model of extraordinary explanatory power.
The text of the Synoptic Gospels exhibit certain characteristics The
presence of these --the raw data-- need to be explained. *At the very
least* the model of the 2SH provides a highly reasonable solution to that
riddle. Moreover, any attempt to discredit that model needs to address
the issues of 1] why this model does such a good job (but can still be
incorrect) and 2] why the author's pet model can do a better job.
Certainly such critiques have been put forward --many on this very list.
But the suggestion that a model of the power of the 2DH can be dismissed
in a couple of paragraphs in a usenet posting or by such table-pounding
tirades as Linneman's recent BR article, can't really be taken seriously.
N
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:31 EDT