From: Nichael Cramer (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Oct 13 1995 - 17:48:42 EDT
On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> ... But I had mentioned before this paragraph above
> (referred to by "the above statements"), the lack of historical evidence and
> archaeological evidence is uncontested.
But it is also of little or no relevance.
The important question here is this: "Does or does not the model of a
Synoptics Saying Source explain the current state of the text of the
Synoptics Gospels better than the assumption that it did not exist?"
As this is an attempt at an empirical --a "scientific" if you will--
examination of these issues, and in the absence of conclusive proof as
to the physical existence or non-existence of the Q document, that is the
_only_ question that matters.
> Could you show me some evidence from history or archaeology from the first
> 1800 years that scholars believe supports the 'Q' hypothesis? I believe the
> 'Q' hypothesis is a relatively recent creation.
Belief in Quantum Mechanics and the model of an expanding universe have
even shorter histories. Are we to dismiss those because the vast
majority of humanity didn't believe in them?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:31 EDT