(May 5, 2019 at 12:09 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: Darrell Bock “All of this evidence appears to point to a date in the 60s”.
J.A.T.Robinson
John Wenham (well, AD 40 isn't the 60s, but in the spirit of the challenge...!)
To be clear, I'm not going to argue for a pre-70 dating.
Two points from the OP:
Far too much is attempted with Q. To use a document whose existence is hypothetical is building on very weak foundations. Q could have been a person, a fluid oral collection document, simply a set of things regularly repeated, or nothing at all.
More importantly, whilst attempts to reconstruct the historical Jesus rule out use of special status for Mark and others, standard historical techniques plus some specific to NT historicity can be used in the normal ways to draw conclusions. We can learn a lot by treating the NT as a collection of historical documents with their own generally obvious biases.
Most Biblical scholars accept the existence of Q; it's mainstream.
