From: Carlton L. Winbery (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Aug 26 1996 - 17:23:14 EDT
Brian Wilson wrote;
<omission> <So you argue that the Two Source Hypothesis is to be
>accepted because the only alternatives, the 2GH and FGM, must be
>rejected on the grounds that both of them fail to fit the data
>observable in synoptic gospels.>
No, I think that Q (source[s] common to Matt & Luke) should be accepted.
The two alternatives that I am referring to is that Matt copied Luke or
Luke copied Matt.
< Your conclusion follows from your
>premises, however, only if the Two Source Hypothesis does not also fail
>to fit completely the data observable in the synoptic gospels. It does
>fail to fit the data completely. It does not fit the minor agreements of
>Mt and Lk against Mk in the triple tradition, nor the so-called "Mark-Q
>Overlaps", nor the presence of many doublets in Mark. If the 2GH and FGM
>are "totally implausible" because they fail to fit completely the data
>in the synoptic gospels, then the Two Source Hypothesis is also totally
>implausible on the same grounds. Surely, with so many scholars doing so
>much research on the assumption that "Q" existed, someone should be able
>to give a straightforward and concise justification for this assumption?
In my opinion the minor agreements have been accounted for. As for the
overlaps between Mark and Q, these remain an area of great speculation and
do not disprove the existence of some such document(s) shared by Matt and
Luke. These would have to be dealt with one by one and would carry us far
afield of the purpose of this forum. These questions have not been
sufficiently strong to dissuade the majority of scholars, however, and they
have not yet dissuaded me from the validity of the basic theory. I do
indicate to my students though that this is still only a theory and fall
short of total proof.
Fogleman Prof. Religion
Fax 1 (318) 487 7425
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:49 EDT