>...If you are convinced that Mark was a basic source for both
>Matt. and Luke (as I am at the moment), the single best argument for
>the exist of some literary source(s) behind both Matt. and Luke is the
>toatl implausibility of either of the other two alternatives. Farmer
>and others have not yet answered those questions to the satisfaction of
> a broad spectrum of gospel critics...Hence we probably need a forum
>for arguing the various positions on gospel relationships.
Carlton,
Thanks for the historical information on this group. I agree strongly
with you that a forum on the synoptic problem is needed.
On the question of justifying the existence of "Q", you state that
"...the single best argument for the exist[ence] of some literary
source(s) behind both Matt. and Luke is the total implausibility of
either of the other two alternatives (the Two Gospel and the Farrer-
Goulder Model)". So you argue that the Two Source Hypothesis is to be
accepted because the only alternatives, the 2GH and FGM, must be
rejected on the grounds that both of them fail to fit the data
observable in synoptic gospels. Your conclusion follows from your
premises, however, only if the Two Source Hypothesis does not also fail
to fit completely the data observable in the synoptic gospels. It does
fail to fit the data completely. It does not fit the minor agreements of
Mt and Lk against Mk in the triple tradition, nor the so-called "Mark-Q
Overlaps", nor the presence of many doublets in Mark. If the 2GH and FGM
are "totally implausible" because they fail to fit completely the data
in the synoptic gospels, then the Two Source Hypothesis is also totally
implausible on the same grounds. Surely, with so many scholars doing so
much research on the assumption that "Q" existed, someone should be able
to give a straightforward and concise justification for this assumption?
-- Brian E. Wilson