Originally posted by Chrawnus
View Post
From Goodacre, M, The Case Against Q, Trinity Press International, 2002
So why is Q apparently becoming so much more tangible? For while it has been widely assumed now for over a century, it is only relatively recently that its status has been elevated in this dramatic way, respected and relied upon by scholars who have not published anything on the Synoptic Problem. It is partly, no doubt, that scholars have been numbed to old-fashioned source-critical questions and it is hardly surprising that they eschew the tedious task of rehearsing issues that they regard as having been long solved. But it is also clear that the apparent elevation in Q's status has itself generated a fresh rhetoric, a rhetoric that then reinforces the situation that it is attempting to describe. For as soon as Q began to leave the arena of the Synoptic Problem and source criticism, the language of theory and hypothesis was quickly replaced with the language of "discovery." Once an artefact of this importance has been "found," scholars are naturally loath to lose it again. [...]
In this widespread new fascination with Q, there is a feature of its history and profile that is increasingly being played down, for not only has Q changed from a "source" into a "Gospel," but also it is forgetting its origin as a hypothesis, indeed a derivative hypothesis, the function of which was to account for the origin of the double tradition material on the assumption that Matthew and Luke were redacting Mark independently of one another. Many books and articles on Q now fail to mention this key element in Q's identity, dispensing with the word "hypothesis" and treating Q simply as part of the established literature of early Christianity.
This is the danger and mistake that many academics make, as Goodacre recounts at length in the rest of chapter.
At the end of the day what Hurtado writes is purely his interpretation. It does not follow that his is the definitive opinion on the matter.
As for his views on Hellenism and Paul, I will come to that later when I have perused the rest of his tome.
Comment