Re: Q

   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.  

Ken Litwak