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

Re: 1488 Viable Synoptic Theories

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... Thanks. One thing I ve noticed is that my decision to class possible hypotheses into solution types that, in its normalized form, disregard
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 31, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:27 PM 1/31/99 -0500, Thomas R.W. Longstaff wrote:
      >On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
      >
      >> I've had a number of questions, both here and off-list, and I would like
      >> to answer them all.
      >
      >Thank you very much for that detailed and helpful explanation. I
      >appreciate the time and care that you have taken with this project
      >and with your reply to questions.

      Thanks. One thing I've noticed is that my decision to class possible
      hypotheses into solution types that, in its normalized form, disregard
      "supernumerary" hypothetical documents that leave only descendant is
      somewhat controversial.

      While I feel that such documents are not necessary to account for
      the synoptic relationship, being instead useful redaction critical
      enterprises, it appears that at least cataloguing such solutions
      would be useful in assigning a number to actual proposals.

      What do people on Synoptic-L think?

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      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
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Stephen Carlson wrote - ... Stephen, I would like to dub your listing the Carlson Classification . Perhaps others on Synoptic-L would want to do the same?
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephen Carlson wrote -
        >
        >One thing I've noticed is that my decision to class possible
        >hypotheses into solution types that, in its normalized form, disregard
        >"supernumerary" hypothetical documents that leave only descendant is
        >somewhat controversial.
        >
        >While I feel that such documents are not necessary to account for
        >the synoptic relationship, being instead useful redaction critical
        >enterprises, it appears that at least cataloguing such solutions
        >would be useful in assigning a number to actual proposals.
        >
        >What do people on Synoptic-L think?
        >
        Stephen,

        I would like to dub your listing the "Carlson Classification". Perhaps
        others on Synoptic-L would want to do the same?

        You seem to assume that a supernumerary document must be hypothetical.
        This is surely an a priori assumption. Would you comment on this,
        please?

        You also seem to assume that supernumerary documents are not necessary
        to account for the observed literary relationship between the synoptic
        gospels. This is surely another a priori assumption. Can you enlighten
        us on this one also, please?

        If you want to catalogue the many synoptic hypotheses which posit
        supernumerary documents, why not mark their name with an asterisk - for
        example *Four Document Hypothesis, or *Logia Translation Hypothesis?
        The asterisked name could then be placed in the list of 1488 alongside
        the entry which includes that part of its structure which is allowed
        under your conditions. Thus *Four Document Hypothesis would be placed on
        the same line as "Two Document Hypothesis". It could then be made clear
        that the asterisk indicates that although the listed structure is
        included in the asterisked hypothesis, it would be mis-leading to assume
        that the hypothesis is defined by that structure.

        A further small point. Since the list is specifically for
        **documentary** hypotheses, should not OO31 on the Carlson
        Classification be given the description "Two Document Hypothesis" ? The
        description "Two-Source Hypothesis" implies that the supernumerary
        source may not have been a document. The description "Two-Source" was in
        fact invented precisely to allow for the possibility of an oral source.
        On your listing, the supernumerary source must be a document, otherwise
        the hypothesis is not documentary. The ambiguous hypothesis that (1)
        Matthew and Luke independently copied from Luke, and (2) Matthew and
        Luke independently used a source which was EITHER a hypothetical
        document OR was a body of oral tradition, is not a candidate for your
        listing, therefore. I would suggest that "Two-Source Hypothesis" should
        not appear on your list, not even with an asterisk, but should be
        replaced by "Two Document Hypothesis". (This explains the deliberate
        mistake in my use of "Two Document Hypothesis" in the previous
        paragraph, rather than "Two-Source Hypothesis" which actually appears
        on the 1488 listing at present.)

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-MAIL : brian@... *** HOMEPAGE RECENTLY UPDATED ***
        SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
        10 York Close, Godmanchester,
        Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK *** SEE HOMEPAGE FOR FIRST DRAFT OF PAPER ***
      • David C. Hindley
        Message text written by Stephen C. Carlson ... hypotheses into solution types that, in its normalized form, disregard supernumerary hypothetical documents
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 1, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Message text written by "Stephen C. Carlson"

          >One thing I've noticed is that my decision to class possible
          hypotheses into solution types that, in its normalized form, disregard
          "supernumerary" hypothetical documents that leave only [one] descendant is
          somewhat controversial.<

          It is, simply because it seems to assume that a hypothesis which cannot be
          criticized at a source level is inferior to one which can be. I have to
          wonder if ranking hypotheses based on whether the hypothetical sources are
          derived from "Source", "Redaction" or "Historical-Critical" analysis is a
          fair way to evaluate them. The accidental survival of documents into the
          present era would not appear to be a sound reason to rank one hypothesis
          higher than another. If inclusion of supernumerary hypothetical documents
          yeild a "total of 4972 different solutions", and so on, then so be it.

          Perhaps, though, it would not hurt to calculate, and publish, lists of all
          possible variant hypotheses, with some means to classify whether sources
          can be analyzed on a source, redaction, or historical-critical level. If
          you like, it could be sorted into sub categories, but some solutions could
          involve more than one type of hypothetical document, and would complicate
          this.

          While correlation with the actual textual and historical data will
          significantly prune down the list to a (somewhat) manageable length, such a
          list would demonstrate just how the immense the problem is.

          Sounds like you have the makings of a monograph there!

          Dave Hindley
          DHindley@...
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          Friends, For the sake of completeness, I ve uploaded a 226K file listing all 4972 viable documentary theories (with up to two hypothetical documents), with a
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 2, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Friends,

            For the sake of completeness, I've uploaded a 226K file listing all 4972
            viable documentary theories (with up to two hypothetical documents),
            with a cross-reference number of the solution type that subsumes the
            supernumerary hypothetical documents. This list is found at:
            http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/enums.htm
            and is accessible from the main enumeration page.

            For example, synoptic theory 0073/4773 (a.k.a. the Logia Translation
            Hypothesis) belongs to solution type 0073 and is uniquely numbered 4773.
            This will allow for more proposed solutions to be numbered, while also
            indicating, to a certain extent, related hypotheses.

            Stephen Carlson
            --
            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
          • Brian E. Wilson
            Stephen Carlson wrote- ... Stephen, You write supernumerary hypothetical documents above. Why? Why not just supernumerary documents ? I would suggest that
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 3, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Stephen Carlson wrote-
              >
              >For the sake of completeness, I've uploaded a 226K file listing all 4972
              >viable documentary theories (with up to two hypothetical documents),
              >with a cross-reference number of the solution type that subsumes the
              >supernumerary hypothetical documents. This list is found at:
              > http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/enums.htm
              >and is accessible from the main enumeration page.
              >
              >For example, synoptic theory 0073/4773 (a.k.a. the Logia Translation
              >Hypothesis) belongs to solution type 0073 and is uniquely numbered 4773.
              >This will allow for more proposed solutions to be numbered, while also
              >indicating, to a certain extent, related hypotheses.
              >
              Stephen,

              You write "supernumerary hypothetical documents" above. Why? Why not
              just "supernumerary documents"? I would suggest that the idea of
              "hypothetical document" is an unnecessary intrusion in your
              classification. Would the classification not work just as well, indeed
              would it not work better, if the term "hypothetical" was removed? On
              this scenario, instead of "supernumerary hypothetical document" you
              would have simply "supernumerary document".

              Your program is about systematically listing different structures of
              synoptic hypotheses. As far as the structure is concerned, it is
              irrelevant whether the supernumerary documents "a" and "b" are
              hypothetical documents or not. The program is designed to give an
              ordered list of structures. It has nothing to do with whether a
              particular "a" or "b" is hypothetical. There is no reason why "a" should
              not be I Corinthians where Luke and Mark both copied from this
              supernumerary document. (This is not an empty supposition. Scholars have
              suggested that Mark and Luke copied from I Corinthians.)

              I think, Stephen, you need to ask yourself whether you have a hidden
              agenda in placing "hypothetical" between "supernumerary" and "document"
              in what you have written above.

              In fact The Logia Translation Hypothesis, to which you refer, assumes
              two supernumerary documents which are not hypothetical documents. The
              Translation and the Logia are attested in the Papias tradition
              concerning a person named Matthew. Attested documents are lost
              documents, not hypothetical ones. The autograph manuscript of the Gospel
              of Mark (with or without material after Mk 16.8!) is a lost manuscript,
              but it is not a hypothetical one. It is attested by papyri, uncials and
              minuscules of the text of Mark, even though we cannot be sure of its
              exact contents.

              I know that some have said, "The relationship between the Logia and the
              Translation and the synoptic gospels remains hypothetical". But are not
              all relationships in hypotheses necessarily hypothetical relationships?
              If the Two Document Hypothesis is a hypothesis, then we do not know that
              Matthew copied from Mark. The relationship is hypothetical. I would
              entirely agree, therefore, that the actual relationship of Papias' Logia
              to the synoptics remains hypothetical. I hope those who have made this
              point, however, would agree with me that, for exactly the same reason,
              the actual relationship between Mark and Matthew, Mark and Luke, and
              Matthew and Luke, remains hypothetical on the Two Document Hypothesis,
              the Farrer Hypothesis, the Griesbach Hypothesis, or, indeed, on any of
              the 1488 hypotheses in the Carlson Classification. To say that "the
              actual relationship (of the Logia) to the synoptics remains
              hypothetical" is simply to say that the Logia Translation Hypothesis is
              a hypothesis. This is necessarily true, but really says nothing, since
              it is merely tautologous.

              With regard to the contents of the Logia, if the Logia Translation
              Hypothesis is assumed, the Logia (in translation) can easily be
              very largely reconstructed, with three witnesses for its wording
              throughout the triple tradition and two witnesses where each pair of
              synoptic gospels agrees against the third (including the minor
              agreements). For on the LTH, any material which occurs in similar
              wording in more than one synoptic gospel must have come from the
              Translation of the Logia.

              I would say that the Logia Translation Hypothesis is therefore no more
              hypothetical in what it affirms concerning either relationships between
              the synoptic gospels or the contents of its supernumerary sources than
              is the Two Document Hypothesis, or indeed any of the great majority of
              the 1488 hypotheses of the Carlson Classification.

              I am all for using graph and network theory for the systematic listing
              of synoptic structures. I think it is mis-leading, however, to imply
              that the supernumerary documents indicated on such a listing must be
              hypothetical documents.

              Best wishes,
              BRIAN WILSON

              E-MAIL : brian@... *** HOMEPAGE RECENTLY UPDATED ***
              SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
              10 York Close, Godmanchester, *** SEE HOMEPAGE FOR FIRST DRAFT OF PAPER ***
              Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK Comments please, either off-List or on-List
            • Graham Hamer
              ... Brian makes an important point about the potential for bias even in an apparently objective statement of theoretical relationships. However, I think there
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 3, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Brian Wilson wrote:

                >
                > I would say that the Logia Translation Hypothesis is therefore no more
                > hypothetical in what it affirms concerning either relationships between
                > the synoptic gospels or the contents of its supernumerary sources than
                > is the Two Document Hypothesis, or indeed any of the great majority of
                > the 1488 hypotheses of the Carlson Classification.
                >
                > I am all for using graph and network theory for the systematic listing
                > of synoptic structures. I think it is mis-leading, however, to imply
                > that the supernumerary documents indicated on such a listing must be
                > hypothetical documents.

                Brian makes an important point about the potential for bias even in an
                apparently objective statement of theoretical relationships. However, I
                think there is a distinction to be drawn between a document we have in its
                entirety (like Mark - leaving aside 16.9ff - I Corinthians etc) and say Q -
                the existence (and reconstruction) of which must be hypothetical. To
                address Brian's example, It is not hypothetical that there was a Logia
                document - since Papias refers directly to it - but exactly what was in
                that document is hypothetical. What is in I Corinthians is not
                hypothetical but any relationship with any of the Gospels must be.

                Graham
              • Brian E. Wilson
                Graham Hamer wrote - ... Graham, OK, except that I would add at the end of your statement that any relationship between any two synoptic gospels and/or
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 3, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Graham Hamer wrote -
                  >
                  > I think there is a distinction to be drawn between a document we have
                  >in its entirety (like Mark - leaving aside 16.9ff - I Corinthians etc)
                  >and say Q - the existence (and reconstruction) of which must be
                  >hypothetical. To address Brian's example, It is not hypothetical that
                  >there was a Logia document - since Papias refers directly to it - but
                  >exactly what was in that document is hypothetical. What is in I
                  >Corinthians is not hypothetical but any relationship with any of the
                  >Gospels must be.
                  >
                  Graham,
                  OK, except that I would add at the end of your statement that
                  any relationship between any two synoptic gospels and/or supernumerary
                  documents, is hypothetical. We do not know the relationship between
                  Matthew and Mark, for instance. The best we can do is posit a
                  hypothesis and see whether it fits well all the data. The relationship
                  posited between Mark and the Letter of James by Robert Lindsey is
                  absolutely no more and no less hypothetical than the relationship
                  posited between Mark and Matthew by Austin Farrer in the Farrer
                  Hypothesis, or the relationship between any two documents posited in any
                  synoptic hypothesis.

                  I would suggest that the following can be affirmed -

                  (1) every relationship between any two synoptic gospels and/or
                  supernumerary documents is a hypothetical relationship since every
                  documentary relationship in a documentary synoptic hypothesis is
                  necessarily hypothetical
                  (2) every unattested document is a hypothetical document
                  (3) no attested document is a hypothetical document
                  (4) if the contents of a hypothetical document have been reconstructed
                  on the basis of a synoptic hypothesis, these are hypothetical contents
                  (5) if the contents of an attested document have been reconstructed on
                  the basis of a synoptic hypothesis, these are hypothetical contents
                  (6) the fact that the contents of a hypothetical documentary source can
                  be reconstructed on the basis of a synoptic hypothesis does not turn the
                  hypothetical source into a source which is not hypothetical
                  (7) the fact that the contents of an attested document can be
                  reconstructed on the basis of a synoptic hypothesis does not turn an
                  attested document into a hypothetical document
                  (8) a supernumerary documentary is either hypothetical or attested, but
                  not both
                  (9) the structure of a synoptic hypothesis does not determine whether a
                  supernumerary document is, or is not, hypothetical

                  Best wishes,
                  BRIAN WILSON

                  E-MAIL : brian@... *** HOMEPAGE RECENTLY UPDATED ***
                  SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                  10 York Close, Godmanchester,
                  Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK *** SEE HOMEPAGE FOR FIRST DRAFT OF PAPER ***
                • Stephen C. Carlson
                  ... I think that I haven t been entirely clear in what I ve meant by supernumerary. If you take the definition of the synoptic problem, as I do, as the
                  Message 8 of 15 , Feb 3, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 11:58 AM 2/3/99 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                    >I think, Stephen, you need to ask yourself whether you have a hidden
                    >agenda in placing "hypothetical" between "supernumerary" and "document"
                    >in what you have written above.

                    I think that I haven't been entirely clear in what I've meant by
                    "supernumerary." If you take the definition of the synoptic
                    problem, as I do, as the inquiry into the existence and nature of
                    the literary interrelationships between the synoptic gospels,
                    then any hypothetical document that I'm interested in is one
                    which could explain a literary interrelationship between two
                    synoptic gospels. Q is one such example; it explains a relationship
                    between Matthew and Luke. Your translated document is another
                    example; it explains the relationships between Matthew, Mark,
                    and Luke.

                    There are hypothetical documents, while interesting perhaps
                    for redaction critical or historical critical purposes, that
                    do not explain the nature of a literary interrelation between
                    two synoptic gospels. A dead-end hypothetical document that
                    left no descendants is one example (suppose a monk wrote a
                    novel based on canonical Matthew, but it was soon destroyed).
                    This zero-descendant hypothetical document is completely
                    gratuitous to postulate and does not explain any synoptic
                    relationship. The structure of the synoptic theory with
                    such a document is equivalent to the synoptic theory that
                    lacks that document.

                    I have also decided to subsume "supernumerary hypothetical
                    documents" under a common solution type. As I understand this
                    term (borrowed from H. Palmer), the term relates to hypothetical
                    documents leaving only one descendant. For example, Chapman's
                    first draft of Luke is one such supernumerary hypothetical
                    document. In many respects, a supernumerary hypothetical
                    document, which can be added ad infinitum in the chain between
                    two synoptics, is convertible into an editorial hypothesis.

                    My structural classification subsumes both supernumerary
                    hypothetical documents and editorial hypotheses. For example,
                    Jameson, Butler, and Wenham are all Augustinians in terms of
                    the structure of their theories, but their editorial policies
                    for Luke differ. If the latter is not controversial, then
                    the former should also not be.

                    >In fact The Logia Translation Hypothesis, to which you refer, assumes
                    >two supernumerary documents which are not hypothetical documents.

                    Actually, as I use the terms, the LTH postulates one hypothetical,
                    source critical document and its supernumerary, hypothetical
                    ancestor. Since only the translated document was used by Matthew,
                    Mark, and Luke, and it is not strictly necessary to hypothecate
                    the Aramaic ancestor to explain how Matthew, Mark, and Luke used
                    its translation.

                    Although Papias may provide independent evidence tending to
                    corroborate the existence of one or more of your hypothetical
                    documents, I still consider both of them to be hypothetical,
                    because the text of Papias' lost logia compiled by Matthew is not
                    independently known. There is no way to verify whether Papias'
                    lost logia indeed matches your reconstructed documents. I also
                    commend Graham Hamer's message.

                    [...]
                    >I would say that the Logia Translation Hypothesis is therefore no more
                    >hypothetical in what it affirms concerning either relationships between
                    >the synoptic gospels or the contents of its supernumerary sources than
                    >is the Two Document Hypothesis, or indeed any of the great majority of
                    >the 1488 hypotheses of the Carlson Classification.

                    The documents postulated by the LTH is no more hypothetical than Q,
                    and, in fact, might be better corroborated, given how to credit Papias.
                    Q is not supernumerary, because Q has more than one descendant.
                    Neither is the second one of your documents.

                    >I am all for using graph and network theory for the systematic listing
                    >of synoptic structures. I think it is mis-leading, however, to imply
                    >that the supernumerary documents indicated on such a listing must be
                    >hypothetical documents.

                    First, the systematic list of 1488 has no supernumerary hypothetical
                    documents, just as it has no dead-end hypothetical documents. Since
                    supernumerary, hypothetical documents are a subset of hypothetical
                    documents (those with a single descendant), the implication is
                    necessary.

                    Stephen Carlson
                    --
                    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
                  • Brian E. Wilson
                    Brian Wilson wrote - ... Stephen Carlson replied - ... Stephen, The phrase supernumerary hypothetical documents was quoted from your letter headed Complete
                    Message 9 of 15 , Feb 4, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Brian Wilson wrote -
                      >
                      >I am all for using graph and network theory for the systematic listing
                      >of synoptic structures. I think it is mis-leading, however, to imply
                      >that the supernumerary documents indicated on such a listing must be
                      >hypothetical documents.
                      >
                      Stephen Carlson replied -
                      >First, the systematic list of 1488 has no supernumerary hypothetical
                      >documents, just as it has no dead-end hypothetical documents.
                      >
                      Stephen,
                      The phrase "supernumerary hypothetical documents" was quoted
                      from your letter headed "Complete List of 4972 Theories". This letter
                      implied that supernumerary documents in the 4792 list must be
                      hypothetical. Presumably you meant what you said in this letter?

                      Stephen continued -
                      >supernumerary, hypothetical documents are a subset of hypothetical
                      >documents (those with a single descendant), the implication is
                      >necessary.
                      >
                      Absolutely. But the trivial implication to which you refer here is not
                      the relevant one, and is not the one to which I refer.

                      It is mis-leading to use a systematic listing of the structure of
                      synoptic hypotheses to imply that every documentary source (other than
                      synoptic gospels themselves), must have been a hypothetical document. If
                      the existence of a document is attested, its existence is not
                      hypothetical, even if its contents are. To quote from Graham Hamer's
                      letter which you commend -

                      >It is not hypothetical that there was a Logia document - since Papias
                      >refers directly to it - but exactly what was in that document is
                      >hypothetical.

                      I think you have to decide, Stephen, whether you allow that documentary
                      sources which are not hypothetical documents are to be included in your
                      4972 or 1488 listings. Can "a" or "b" be a documentary source which is
                      not a hypothetical document? Or do you rule this out a priori? I think
                      this question should be answered so that those using the Carlson
                      Classification will know what it is for.

                      Best wishes,
                      BRIAN WILSON

                      E-MAIL : brian@... *** HOMEPAGE RECENTLY UPDATED ***
                      SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                      10 York Close, Godmanchester, *** SEE HOMEPAGE FOR FIRST DRAFT OF PAPER ***
                      Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK Comments welcome - either off-List or on-List
                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                      I m sure this discussion on terminology and methodology is fascinating to no one, but I trudge on. ... I ve looked at my letter. I see nothing in the letter
                      Message 10 of 15 , Feb 5, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I'm sure this discussion on terminology and methodology is fascinating
                        to no one, but I trudge on.

                        At 09:56 AM 2/4/99 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                        > The phrase "supernumerary hypothetical documents" was quoted
                        >from your letter headed "Complete List of 4972 Theories". This letter
                        >implied that supernumerary documents in the 4792 list must be
                        >hypothetical. Presumably you meant what you said in this letter?

                        I've looked at my letter. I see nothing in the letter that allows
                        one to make the implication that "supernumerary documents in the 4792
                        list must by hypothetical." As I use the term "supernumerary" (having
                        a single descendant), the very first hypothesis contains a non-
                        hypothetical supernumerary document: Mark.

                        >I think you have to decide, Stephen, whether you allow that documentary
                        >sources which are not hypothetical documents are to be included in your
                        >4972 or 1488 listings. Can "a" or "b" be a documentary source which is
                        >not a hypothetical document? Or do you rule this out a priori? I think
                        >this question should be answered so that those using the Carlson
                        >Classification will know what it is for.

                        I don't really see the conflict. Structurally, "a" and "b" are documents
                        whose text is hypothesized for the purpose of explaining a hypothesis for
                        the synoptic problem, that is, the existence and nature of the literary
                        interrelationship between and among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. That is what
                        I mean by a hypothetical document.

                        There is nothing to prevent "a" or "b" from being documentary sources or
                        attested. In fact, if the hypothesis is correct, they must have existed.
                        However, there seems to be a tendency to use "hypothetical" as a term of
                        derogation, as in "Q is merely a hypothetical document."

                        Based on what you are saying, though, it appears we mean different things
                        by the word "hypothetical" and it appears that we mean different things
                        by the word "supernumerary." In fact, you're usage of the word "super-
                        numerary" appears to be nearly identical with mine own "hypothetical."
                        For me, a "hypothetical document" in the synoptic problem is a document
                        whose contents is hypothesized to explain the literary interrelationship
                        between any two or all three of the synoptic gospels.

                        It seems to me what you are doing is: coming up with a hypothetical
                        document to solve the synoptic problem and identifying an attested
                        document with your hypothetical document. I don't really have much
                        of a problem with that, except I don't really know enough about
                        Papias' document to feel comfortable in making that identification,
                        just as I am not comfortable with identifying Papias's logia of
                        Matthew with Q.

                        Stephen Carlson

                        --
                        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
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.