Let me repeat: Q is a source that we don't have. To reconstruct what we think was in it is hypothetical enough. But at least in doing so we have some hard evidence...But to go further and insist that we know what was not in the source, for example, a Passion narrative, what its multiple editions were like, and which of these multiple editions was the earliest, and so on, really goes far beyond what we can know - however appealing such "knowledge" might be." (Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium. 113.)
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Quote of the Day - Ehrman on Q
I know, I may not be fashionable doing such but I seem to share such scepticism towards Q:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That is kind of how I feel about Q.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Q source probably did exist. But I think it is ludicrous that some people claim they can deduce what was not in the Q source. I think that is ridiculous.
Exactly how I feel. However, I haven't really looked into the challenges to Q by Mark Goodacre and others.
ReplyDelete