Risking Sterling's flame thrower, I'll only ask one question (doubtless
showing my overflowing ignorance on all topics Biblical). If I have evaluated
the Q Hypothesis in the past, and found it wanting IMHO on fundamental points,
is it really meaningful to suggest that I need to be well-acquainted with all
the literature from the last fifteen years of refinement of the basic hypothesis
before I can fairly declare it unconvincing to me? If I assert that I find
some points very weak links in the Q chain, having other links added to the
chain that may be stronger later does not ameliorate the weak links put on at
the start. I live in California. I've seen buildings with supports
holding up the walls because the foundations did not survive earthquakes.
The supports do not help the foundation's strength. As long as Q is only a
hypothesis, with no MS evidence behind it, I think I should be entitled to
my agnosticism based on my view of the basic issues without being thoroughly
versed in all the research available. Or am I still guilty of being uneducated
enough to hold a reasoned opinion on the topic? I'm not maintaining Q is
impossible, just that I find it more unlikely than other alternatives.