Watson, Francis B. (2009) 'Q as hypothesis : a study in methodology.', New Testament Studies., 55 (4). pp. 397-415.
Arguments for the Q hypothesis have changed little since B. H. Streeter. The purpose of this article is not to advocate an alternative hypothesis but to argue that, if the Q hypothesis is to be sustained, the unlikelihood of Luke's dependence on Matthew must be demonstrated by a systematic and comprehensive reconstruction of the redactional procedures entailed in the two hypotheses. The Q hypothesis will have been verified if (and only if) it generates a more plausible account of the Matthean and Lukan redaction of Mark and Q than the corresponding account of Luke's use of Mark and Matthew.
|Keywords:||Q, Synoptic problem, Source criticism, Two source hypothesis.|
|Full text:||PDF - Published Version (174Kb)|
|Publisher Web site:||http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688509990026|
|Publisher statement:||© Copyright Cambridge University Press. This paper has been published by Cambridge University Press in "New Testament Studies" (55: 4 (2009) 397-415) http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=NTS. © 2009 Cambridge University Press|
|Record Created:||21 May 2010 10:35|
|Last Modified:||23 Nov 2010 15:31|
|Social bookmarking:||Export: EndNote, Zotero | BibTex|
|Usage statistics||Look up in GoogleScholar | Find in a UK Library|