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

9801Re: [Synoptic-L] Less hypothetical?

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Aug 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Kloppenborg had written in NTS:

      >"Luke's supposed dependence on Mark is not any less hypothetical than Luke's
      >dependence on Q, merely because we have third-century manuscripts of Mark."

      Peter Kirby wrote:

      > But it is not clear what "less hypothetical" means; is it the same as "more
      > certain"?  I don't think it is.  He may be implying that a statement is either
      > hypothetical or isn't (without degree).

      That's probably the way Kloppenborg would defend it if he were challenged,
      in spite of the word "less" which seems to imply "degree" in the comparison.

      Stephen Carlson wrote:

      > Rather than condemn Klopp.et al. for a strawman .....

      I think this is being too soft on him. An eminent scholar should not
      descend to making an exaggerated claim just because some of his opponents
      make exaggerated claims. In making the comparison between Q and the
      archetype of Mark, Kloppenborg evidently intended to try to demolish the
      argument that the hypothetical nature of Q should be counted as a factor
      against the 2ST. Kloppenborg's statement is misleading and we should see
      through it.

      Perhaps the inclusion of such a dubious statement shows that he has been
      rattled by Goodacre's case against Q.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic