Talk:Q document
From Academic Kids
Can someone put this sentence into something resembling a legible sentence:
- Further textual analysis tends to confirm this hypothesis as Q, the document generated by subtracting Mark from the intersection of Matthew and Luke, has a thematic structure and consistency that is generally considered unlikely to be due to chance.
- It starts off in one direction and goes somewhere else. -- Zoe
- It is trying to say that Q has certain themes that are more prominent in itself than in either Matthew and Luke that you would not expect to find by subtracting Mark from them. What this article really needed is a summation of all the arguments for Q, which I've provided now. -- Stephen C. Carlson
- But it isn't grammatically correct. -- Zoe
- It got rewritten, but that sentence could have used a comma before "as" since it was being used as a conjunction. -- Stephen C. Carlson
"Two-Source Hypothesis" is hyphenated on another page that refers to it, and I have altered this page so that it is hyphenated here. One newspaper headline says:
New Age-Discrimination Rules Proposed
and another says:
New-Age Discrimination Rules Proposed
The difference in meaning is a good argument in favor of the tradional way of using hyphens. -- Mike Hardy
If this article is going to have a "Case for Q" section, should it not also have a "Case Against Q" section?
Feel free to write one. Ashibaka (tock) 02:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
NPOV? I don't think so.
The first line states that "For alert readers of the New Testament, the recognition that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke share much material not found in their familiar source, the Gospel of Mark, has suggested a common second source, called the Q document (Q for German Quelle, "source")."
"For alert readers"? You must be joking. How is that a neutral POV? I've added the NPOV tag because of it. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
So, what is the Ta bu shi da yu adjective to specify those readers who might notice such things? Insert whatever the appropriate Ta bu shi da yu adjective may be, please, and remove the little tag. --Wetman 04:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:Andriesb. "Alert readers" has been changed to "New testament scholars." Very telling change indeed. Does one see the shift in emphasis? The POV of Wikipedia is that the alert reader is not to be credited, and only "New Testament scholars" have the requirewd authority. The "alert reader" is very much the person Virginia Woolf dubbed The Common Reader in two collections of essays on literary subjects, as seen by the educated and alert, critical but non-professional reader. Is such a reader now an "elitist" at the cultural level of Ta bu shi da yu? A question to ponder, not to answer. --Wetman 19:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
