5746Re: [Synoptic-L] The Existence of Q
- Mar 1, 2001At 07:42 PM 2/28/01 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
> My example quoted at the top was intended as a case where theIf you could eliminate the possibility that dependence of A and
>dependence of A and B on a common source was unlikely, on the basis that
>a literary characteristic of an author is unlikely to have been copied
>from any source. Therefore (my argument goes) the author of A probably
>did not take the pericope concerned from a common source, nor, on the
>same basis, did (s)he take it from B. More positively, B probably took
>it from A.
B on a common source as unlikely, then I would agree with you
that the presence of A's literary characteristic in B would
indicate that B took it from A. I just would like to know how
one could eliminate indirect dependence on a common source as
I would suggest that the burden of proof belongs to one asserting
that there is a indirect dependence on a common source. This is
because in any apparent A --> B direct dependence relationship one
could always posit an A' nearly identical to A (e.g. the third
KAI is changed to DE and vice versa) and assert an A <-- A' --> B
relationship of indirect dependence on a common source, viz. A.
That is why I sketched three arguments as possible ways to meet
that burden. I'm not sure I'm entirely happy that their formulation.
For example, is the argument from contradictory priority indicators
really a form of the argument about silence?
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>