butiful
kek
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q%2B/Papias_Hypothesis#The_Logoi_of_Jesus_(Q+)
Not a biblefag, this stuff has no relationship to "Q clearance" Patriot.
A "Q source" for the Gospels is well known in biblical literature of the New Testament, but the MacDonald interpretation is weak at best.
New Testament scholar Karl Olav Sandnes, author of the monograph The Challenge of Homer: School, Pagan Poets, and Early Christianity critiqued MacDonald in an article of the Journal for Biblical Literature.[1] Sandnes notes the vague nature of alleged parallels as the "Achilles' heel" of the "slippery" project. He has also questioned the nature of the alleged paralleled motifs, seeing MacDonald's interpretations of common motives. He states, "His [MacDonald's] reading is fascinating and contributes to a reader-orientated exegesis. But he fails to demonstrate authorial intention while he, in fact, neglects the OT intertextuality that is broadcast in this literature."
Another scholar, Margaret Mitchell concluded that "many of MacDonald's conclusions are forced and contorted, rendered on the basis of inconsistent application of interpretive principles. When available, the evidentiary value of exact verbal parallels is trumpeted; when not, it is downplayed or dismissed".[2] Daniel Gullotta from Stanford similarly writes "MacDonald’s list of unconvincing comparisons goes on and has been noted by numerous critics. Despite MacDonald’s worthy call for scholars to reexamine the educational practices of the ancient world, all of the evidence renders his position of Homeric influential dominance untenable."[3]
1) Karl Olav Sandnes, "Imitatio Homeri? An Appraisal of Dennis R. MacDonald's "Mimesis Criticism"", Journal of Biblical Literature 1124/4 (2005) 715–732.
2) Mitchell, Margaret M. "Homer in the New Testament?." (2003): 252.
3) Gullotta, Daniel N. "On Richard Carrier’s Doubts." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 15.2-3 (2017): 340.