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

is the 2DH just not defined?

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    It seems to me that unless we do define the 2DH, we simply are not in a position either to dismiss it or to hold it. Unless it is defined, it is meaningless.
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 8, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      It seems to me that unless we do define the 2DH, we simply are not in a
      position either to dismiss it or to hold it. Unless it is defined, it is
      meaningless.

      To say that the 2DH does not necessarily entail that Mark did not copy
      from Q, is to leave the 2DH undefined. Is it posited that Mark did copy
      from Q (as Fleddermann posits)? Or is it posited that Mark did not copy
      from Q (as later Streeter posited)? Similarly with saying that the 2DH
      does not necessarily entail that Q did not copy from Mark. Is it
      posited that Q did copy from Mark (as W. Schmithals posits)? Or is it
      posited that Q did not copy from Mark (as Manson posited)?

      In the light of criticisms of my last attempt, I would suggest the
      following amended version as my working definition of the 2DH -

      (1) Matthew and Luke copied from a hypothetical document Q
      (2) Matthew and Luke independently copied from Mark
      (3) Mark did not copy from Q
      (4) Q did not copy from Mark
      (5) No other hypothetical documents are posited

      If the 2DH is defined as above, then it is incompatible with the
      observed minor agreements and the so-called "Mark-Q Overlaps". It is
      ruled out, and Q as defined within it, did not exist.

      If, however, the above does not define the 2DH, then, please, what
      exactly is the 2DH?

      Or is the 2DH just not defined?

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.