Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document

The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE Q-DOCUMENT BY PETROS VASSILIADIS Athens It is beyond question that the Q-Hypothesis, namely the assump- tion that both St. Matthew and St. Luke, independently of each other, used besides Mark a second source which is now by general consent referred to as Q, had its climax in the Literary Critical era 1). Subsequently, the new direction which Form-Criticism gave to Synoptic scholarship, i.e. the period of oral tradition 2), as well as some successful studies on the Aramaic background of the individual sayings 3), diminished interest in Q. However, with the rise of Redaction-Criticism a renewal of the study of Q became inevitable since Redaction-Criticism depends very much upon Source-Criticism. Thus, H. E. T6DT 4) made a significant contribu- tion to the redactional theology of Q, while WfiD. DAVIES 5) some time later began to explore the purpose and theological emphasis of Q from a new angle. In addition, J. M. ROBINSON 6) showed how 1) Cf. A. HARNACK, The Sayings of Jesus (ET, London, 1907); and B. H. STREETER, The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins (London, 1924). 2) In that particular area, as R. BULTMANN pointed out, "the enquiry can http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Novum Testamentum Brill

The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document

Novum Testamentum , Volume 20 (1): 49 – Jan 1, 1978

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/the-nature-and-extent-of-the-q-document-0lJUxGNEOi

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1978 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0048-1009
eISSN
1568-5365
DOI
10.1163/156853678X00038
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE Q-DOCUMENT BY PETROS VASSILIADIS Athens It is beyond question that the Q-Hypothesis, namely the assump- tion that both St. Matthew and St. Luke, independently of each other, used besides Mark a second source which is now by general consent referred to as Q, had its climax in the Literary Critical era 1). Subsequently, the new direction which Form-Criticism gave to Synoptic scholarship, i.e. the period of oral tradition 2), as well as some successful studies on the Aramaic background of the individual sayings 3), diminished interest in Q. However, with the rise of Redaction-Criticism a renewal of the study of Q became inevitable since Redaction-Criticism depends very much upon Source-Criticism. Thus, H. E. T6DT 4) made a significant contribu- tion to the redactional theology of Q, while WfiD. DAVIES 5) some time later began to explore the purpose and theological emphasis of Q from a new angle. In addition, J. M. ROBINSON 6) showed how 1) Cf. A. HARNACK, The Sayings of Jesus (ET, London, 1907); and B. H. STREETER, The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins (London, 1924). 2) In that particular area, as R. BULTMANN pointed out, "the enquiry can

Journal

Novum TestamentumBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1978

There are no references for this article.