At 07:09 3/7/98 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
>I define the Two Document Hypothesis in the following propositions -
>(a) Matthew and Luke each copied from a documentary source Q
>(b) Matthew and Luke each copied from Mark
>(c) Mark did not copy from Q
>(d) Q did not copy from Mark
>(e) no other hypothetical document is posited.
Others have already addressed points (c) and (d). I would like to address
point (e). I prefer to formulate (e) as "no other hypothetical document is
posited to explain the literary relationship between any of the Synoptics."
Thus, this formulation excludes such hypothetical sources as Ur-Markus or
proto-Mark (source of Mt,Mk,Lk), deutero-Mark (recension of Mark used by Mt
and Lk), and Pierson Parker's K (=Mark+M, source to Mark and Mt), while
allowing such sources for a single document as pre-Markan catenae, M, L,
I submit that there are analytically two kinds of hypothetical documents:
(1) those used to explain the literary relationship between two documents, and
(2) those used to explain some feature of a single document.
Only the first kind of hypothetical document should be subject to Occam's
Razor in deciding between competing synoptic source theories. See also,
the discussion of the nonMatthean source for Luke in MacNicol et al., BEYOND
THE Q IMPASSE -- LUKE'S USE OF MATTHEW: 25-28.
Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
: and songs chant the words.
: -- Shujing 2.35