165Re: Q yes or no?
- Mar 7, 1998Brian - if you don't mind the interjection of a boring logician, I'd
like to respond to the following passages:
> J. S. Kloppenborg has written of "the viability of the Two DocumentWhat you need for your argument, of course, is to first establish the
> Hypothesis, upon which the very existence of Q is predicated" ("Q
> Parallels", page xxi.). I understand this to mean that Q is defined as
> that hypothetical documentary source which is presupposed by the Two
> Document Hypothesis, so that if the Two Document Hypothesis is ruled
> out, Q did not exist.
> Taking this as a starting point, I would suggest we can decide whether Q
> existed by (1) defining the Two Document Hypothesis, and (2) considering
> whether the observable patterns of similarities and differences of
> wording and order of material in the synoptic gospels are compatible
> with the Two Document Hypothesis so defined.
truth of 'If not-2D, then not-Q'. To say as you do, however, that 2D
'presupposes' Q is simply to say that 'If 2D, then Q', which is quite
different from, and does not entail, 'If not-2D, then not-Q'.
Nevertheless, the way Kloppenborg puts it _does_ seem to entail 'If
not-2D, then not-Q'. So we must see if what he says is right. Certainly
many 2D-theorists have seemed to argue that way, but there really isn't
any logically-necessary connection between 2D and Q. What would be
needed to establish that connection would be to prove that 'If Q, then
2D' (which is logically equivalent to 'If not-2D, then not-Q'). In other
words, we would have to show that if Q existed, then 2D is the correct
theory about the formation of the Gospels. I think you'll agree there is
little chance of _that_ being true. Hence your argument against 2D, as
nice as it is, doesn't prove the non-existence of Q.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>