Re: [Synoptic-L] Assumptions about the 2DH
- Brian Trafford wrote:
>Quite frankly, I do not see why a proponent of the 2DH bears any kind of aBrian,
>burden of proof as to the exact nature and composition of Q.
Your comment misses my point.
Do you not think that those who propose a hypothesis have an
obligation to test it?
The 2DH implies that the double tradition or something very like it
was once a written document (note the "D" in 2DH means document, and the
"2" refers to Mark and Q).
If you agree with the obligation to test hypotheses, why don't you
agree on the need to test the viability of Q as a stand-alone document?
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
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@...