Bellinzoni[ed],The Two Source Hyopothesis

Brian E. Wilson (
Fri, 23 Aug 1996 19:39:50 +0100

Jack Kilmon wrote:
>> I think the hypothesis is interesting but much too simplistic
>>an explanation for the development of the Gospels....

Brian Wilson wrote:

> To answer your comments, it would be helpful if you could please give
> some justification for accepting the existence of hypothetical QI and
> QII.

Jack Kilmon wrote:

> I would refer you to John S. Kloppenberg, "The Formation of Q:
>Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections" Studies in Antiquity and
>Christianity, Phila, Fortress. 1977 and Dieter Luhrmann, "Die Redaktion
>der Logiequelle" WMAHT33, Neukirchen; Neukirchenr Verlag 1969...


I have carefully re-read Kloppenborg (I think I have spelled his name
correctly). He simply assumes that "Q" existed, and argues from this
assumption that there were two recensions (your "Q1" and "Q2",
presumably). But nowhere does he justify the existence of "Q" in the
first place. Do you yourself maintain that "Q" existed by taking
Kloppenborg on trust, and others? Or do you in fact have a
justification for the existence of "Q"? If you simply take
Kloppenborg's assumption on trust, why do you not take W.R.Farmer's
Two Gospel Hypothesis on trust, and deny that "Q" existed as Farmer
does? Or why not take the Two Notebook Hypothesis on trust?!!

I think this is a very important issue for the study of the Synoptic
Problem. It is pointless using a hypothesis, such as the Two Source
Hypothesis, without being able to say how you justify the assumptions in
the hypothesis. I take the trouble to justify the existence of "N1" and
"N2" in my talk, which can be seen at .
I do this by showing that the Two Notebook Hypothesis, which posits "N1"
and "N2", fits all the data in the synoptic gospels, and has external
evidence in its support also. It would, as I have said previously,
help me to answer your comments, if you did give some justification for
the existence of "Q", whether or not subdivided into "QI" and "QII".

Brian E. Wilson