Brian - 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 Document

> 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.

What you need for your argument, of course, is to first establish the

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.

Best wishes,

Mike Grondin