Re: [Synoptic-L] New article on Q and method
> "Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology"Thanks to Wieland for passing on this information.
> Francis Watson
> New Testament Studies (2009), 55:397-415
> Arguments for the Q hypothesis have changed little since B. H. Streeter. The
> purpose of this article is not to advocate an alternative hypothesis but to
> argue that, if the Q hypothesis is to be sustained, the unlikelihood of
> Luke's dependence on Matthew must be demonstrated by a systematic and
> comprehensive reconstruction of the redactional procedures entailed in the
> two hypotheses. The Q hypothesis will have been verified if (and only if) it
> generates a more plausible account of the Matthean and Lukan redaction of
> Mark and Q than the corresponding account of Luke's use of Mark and Matthew.
The argument in the second sentence in the abstract above is probably true
(depending on one's definition of 'sustained'). Unfortunately the third
sentence is patently false. It is as if we were to claim that a careful
comparison of the land area of Canada with that of China, showing that
Canada is bigger, would verify that Canada is the biggest country in the
world. It would not, for it is not.
Watson should be given credit for implicitly discounting outlandish
hypotheses. But why do he and so many others insist on seeing the problem in
black and white? Can't they see that:
*the weakness of the 2ST is primarily in its handling of narrative text, and
the weakness of the FT is primarily in its handling of the sayings*?
Isn't the solution obvious? It seemed obvious to me over 10 years ago, and
my detailed studies since that time have confirmed it. The Double Tradition
didn't all come from the same source!! (For the detailed arguments, start at
the Web page below.)