4882[Synoptic-L] excavating Q
- Oct 2, 2000Brian Wilson wrote --
>Stephen Carlson replied --
>Has the IQP actually defined their "Q hypothesis"? If so, it might be
>interesting to know what it states.
>I think it all depends on what you mean by "defined." I am applauding
>them for reconstructing Q *and* documenting their decisions every step
>of the way. This transparency allows the interested critic to evaluate
>their work with[out] having to guess or "infer" what their reasoning
I wonder whether it does allow the interested critic to do this
unless the IQP have defined the hypothesis they are using? It seems to
me that without a definition, the interested critic would not know what
hypothesis to evaluate, or what the work is supposed to be about,
however thorough the documentation on decisions on which words are
supposed to be included in hypothetical "Q", and which are to be
The writing of the IQP can hardly be "transparent" unless at every step
of the way it clearly relates their decisions of what words to include
in "Q" to their documentary hypothesis of "Q". That can hardly have
happened if they do not know what documentary hypothesis they are trying
to apply to the synoptic gospels to produce their reconstruction of "Q".
Does anyone please know whether the IQP have defined the "Q hypothesis"
or "Q", and if so what their definition is? What have they actually been
trying to do?
E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk
Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot_
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>