[Synoptic-L] Is Q a Juggernaut?
- Andrew Smith wrote -
>>What is the way in which we can know that the Farrer Hypothesis is
>>true or not, but in which we cannot know that the Three Source
>>Hypothesis is true or not?...
>Digging up Q wouldn't falsify the FH in itself, but digging up Q and
>showing that Luke and/or Matthew have used it as a source WOULD
>falsify the FH.
I think the following definition of "falsifiable" might be used
in this context -
>You suggest that (1) "digging up Q" and (2) "showing that Luke and/or
>"An hypothesis is falsifiable if there exists a logically possible
>observation statement or set of observation statements that are
>inconsistent with it, that is, which, if established as true, would
>falsify the hypothesis." (A. F. Chalmers, "What is this thing called
>Science?" -- Milton Keynes, 1978 -- page 37.)
Matthew have used Q", would together falsify the FH. It seems to me,
however, that (1) is unnecessary since (2) would be sufficient. So I
propose to leave (1) on one side for the moment.
In the case of (2), the problem is that this is not "a logically
possible **observation** statement or set of **observation**
statements." The idea of "showing that Luke and/or Matthew have used Q
as a source" is a hypothesis that would itself need testing. It is not
something which could be observed. So it is not "a logically possible
observation statement or set of statements". (Even if Q had been dug up,
this would still be the case.) This contrasts with the idea that there
are (or are not) Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in
the triple tradition. The idea that they exist, (or that they do not
exist), is "a logically possible observation statement or set of
observation statements". We could look at a synopsis and observe whether
there are (or are not) Minor Agreements. We cannot look at a synopsis
and observe that Luke and/or Matthew used (or did not use) Q.
So although your logic is impeccable, I do not think that the recipe you
propose would work.
I am still tentatively of the opinion that there is no way in which the
FH is falsifiable but in which the 3SH is not falsifiable, though I am
prepared to be convinced otherwise. In his article "Is Q a Juggernaut?",
Goulder says that "soft-line" theories (like the 3SH) are "unfalsifiable
and so not useful". If, however, there is no way in which the FH is
falsifiable but in which the 3SH is not falsifiable, it follows that, on
Goulder's assumptions, the Farrer Hypothesis is "unfalsifiable and so
not useful" also.
E-MAIL : brian@... HOMEPAGE
SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
10 York Close, Godmanchester, www.twonh.demon.co.uk
Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8EB, UK