9801Re: [Synoptic-L] Less hypothetical?
- Aug 31, 2004Kloppenborg had written in NTS:
>"Luke's supposed dependence on Mark is not any less hypothetical than Luke'sPeter Kirby wrote:
>dependence on Q, merely because we have third-century manuscripts of Mark."
> But it is not clear what "less hypothetical" means; is it the same as "moreThat's probably the way Kloppenborg would defend it if he were challenged,
> certain"? I don't think it is. He may be implying that a statement is either
> hypothetical or isn't (without degree).
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
Perhaps the inclusion of such a dubious statement shows that he has been
rattled by Goodacre's case against Q.
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@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>