Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

176Re: Q yes or no?

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    Mar 9, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 07:09 3/7/98 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
      >I define the Two Document Hypothesis in the following propositions -
      >(a) Matthew and Luke each copied from a documentary source Q
      >(b) Matthew and Luke each copied from Mark
      >(c) Mark did not copy from Q
      >(d) Q did not copy from Mark
      >(e) no other hypothetical document is posited.

      Others have already addressed points (c) and (d). I would like to address
      point (e). I prefer to formulate (e) as "no other hypothetical document is
      posited to explain the literary relationship between any of the Synoptics."
      Thus, this formulation excludes such hypothetical sources as Ur-Markus or
      proto-Mark (source of Mt,Mk,Lk), deutero-Mark (recension of Mark used by Mt
      and Lk), and Pierson Parker's K (=Mark+M, source to Mark and Mt), while
      allowing such sources for a single document as pre-Markan catenae, M, L,
      and Q1.

      I submit that there are analytically two kinds of hypothetical documents:
      (1) those used to explain the literary relationship between two documents, and
      (2) those used to explain some feature of a single document.

      Only the first kind of hypothetical document should be subject to Occam's
      Razor in deciding between competing synoptic source theories. See also,
      the discussion of the nonMatthean source for Luke in MacNicol et al., BEYOND
      THE Q IMPASSE -- LUKE'S USE OF MATTHEW: 25-28.

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
      scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
      http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic