Subject: Re: Q
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:22:50 +1000
From: "Peter B. West" <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Nigel Mitchell wrote:
> 
> I had promised to post on the subject of the Synoptic problem and the "Q"
> hypothesis, but I have little time to spend on the newsgroup at the moment, and
> also I cannot see the point of reinventing the wheel. There are many good books
> available on this subject, and the introduction to most commentaries on the
> Gospels will summarise the arguments much more fully than I could here.
> Although the Internet can be an useful tool for investigating some things, it
> has yet to replace a library or a theology faculty as a reliable or
> comprehensive source of theological information.
> 
> Rathjer than start a new discussion/debate/argument, I will suggest that anyone
> who wants to learn more about this subject from the Internet follow this link:
> 
> http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/faq.htm
> 
> This page, part of the "synoptic propblem home page" site, explains the
> arguments for and against various explanations of the composition of the
> Gospels. There is a very good biography at the bottom of the page, and a link
> to the site which contains much more information.

I heartily recommend this site, but don't start with the FAQ, start at the home
page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/

There you will find, at the top of the page, a series of links, including a link
to the FAQ, and then the section Synoptic Theories and Hypotheses.  In this
section are thumbnail sketches of 23 popular source theories, with an indication
of the most prominent scholars who have offered or supported them, complete with
cute little coloured diagrams of the sources (Mt, Mk, Lk, Q, L, protoMk, protoLk,
protoMt, protoGospel(UrG), T, A, R1, Pn - did I say L? - and who can forget dMk,
deutero-Mark?) and arrows showing their putative lines of descent.

But wait, there's more!  Back to the top of page, and follow the link
"Enumeration of 1488 Viable Synoptic Theory Types".
<http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/enum.htm> Read the explanation
of "viable."  You will find that it is actually quite restrictive of certain
classes of "hypothetical documents".  If you have the stomach for it, you can in
fact follow from there the link "complete list of 4972 viable documentary
solutions including those with supernumerary documents"
<http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/enums.htm>.

I am not making this up.  It is in fact being made up, and made up is precisely
the term for it, by what Catholics would call the pseudo-Magisterium.  (The
Magisterium is the teaching office and authority of the Church, exercised
especially by the Pope, speaking infallibly on matters of faith and morals, and
by the Bishops in Council, and in communion with the Bishop of Rome.  The
Magisterium relies on the Apostolic succession for the authority of its
teaching.) The pseudo-Magisterium is a motley, fractious mob of theological and
scriptural ne'er-do-wells who are intent on substituting their own academic
home-brew for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Faith which
it has constantly taught.

But anyway, trot along to this site, and have a chuckle.  This is pseudo Biblical
scholarship at its thigh slapping best.  Just remember that the original referral
to this site was offered with a perfectly straight face.

-- 
 __ /__   Peter B. West  
   /     http://www.uq.net.au/~zzpwest
  /     "Lord, to whom shall we go?"