Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre

Post by StephenGoranson »

Above, Irish1975 wrote, in part:
".... there is no such thing as Ockham’s Razor. The formulation attributed to Ockham is a misattribution. Some Irishman coined it centuries later, whose version of the principle—entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem—is both canonical and universally rejected in favor of something else."

Following is the entry in The New Yale Book of Quotations, Fred Shapiro, ed. (YUP, 2021) page 604.
If anyone offers revisions, I would be interested.

"William of Occam
English philosopher, ca. 1285-1349
1 Plurality should not be assumed unnecessarily.
Quodlibeta no. 5, question 1, art. 2 (ca. 1324). This is the closest Occam came to the paraphrase now known as "Occam's Razor": "No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary." The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations describes "Occam's Razor" as "an ancient philosophical principle often attributed to Occam but earlier in origin" and states that it is "not found in this form in his writings, although he frequently used similar expressions" such as the one set forth above. The
Oxford Dictionary of Scientific Quotations cites "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less" from Summa logicae (The Sum of All Logic) [before 1324], Part I, chapter 12. William of Ockham borrowing from Petrus Aureolus, The Eloquent Doctor, 2 Sent. distinction 12, question 1.""
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre

Post by Ken Olson »

Philologus wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 6:15 am
Ken Olson wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 1:44 am
Philologus wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 7:02 pm Goodacre is misusing Occam's Razor. That rule of thumb is about reducing the number of assumptions, not the number of entities.
You are claiming that Occam's razor (Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" - Wikipedia) is not about the number of entities?
From Wikipedia:
Attributed to William of Ockham, ... , it is frequently cited as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity", although Occam never used these exact words.
[...]
This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should prefer the one that requires the fewest assumptions...
End Wikipedia excerpt.
You did not comment on the balance of what I wrote in that post:

We are compelled to believe in the existence of Mark, Matthew and Luke because we have manuscripts. Their existence is therefore demonstrable. We do not have manuscripts of Q. The existence of Q is deduced from the shared material in Matthew and Luke that they could not have taken from Mark AND the premise that one of the evangelists could not have taken this material from the other.

This isn't to say that the Q theory is impossible, only that demonstrating its existence requires demonstration of the premise that the shared Matt-Luke material was not the result of one of Matt and Luke using the other. This is why Goodacre claims Farrer deserves first consideration. He is not saying Occam's razor makes Farrer more likely, he's pointing out the logic behind the Q theory requires that the premise that Matthew did not use Luke (or vice versa) first be shown to be probable.

I think my argument here shows that the Q theory does indeed posit additional assumptions that are in need of demonstration beyond what the Farrer theory (Luke's use of Matthew) does. Do you disagree, and if so, why?

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 9:10 pm I'm not necessarily a huge fan of Goodacre's reference to Ockham's razor, as I think there can be positive arguments either way. I also think he has the ability to make a case that doesn't rely on it.
Warning: what I'm about to say is going to annoy several people here, including people that I very much like and respect.
Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 2:31 amThis is why Goodacre claims Farrer deserves first consideration.
Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 2:31 amHe is not saying Occam's razor makes Farrer more likely...
There is a tension between these two statements. The fact is that Farrer does not deserve first consideration. Farrer is a hypothesis. Like all hypotheses, it doesn't deserve anything. With no witnesses, it doesn't even allow for any kind of prima facie assent. It's in the closed cage death match with all the other hypotheses. Nothing more, nothing less.

By the way, this is what I meant by the comment in the OP. My dislike of the use of Ockham's razor here (and perhaps it is fine in entirely different contexts, other than history) is that it tends to produce people who decide in advance what they would like to consider as a "first consideration" hypothesis. Then, with no surprise whatsoever, it leads people to defend the first hypothesis against secondary hypotheses. And it's struggle enough to try to figure things out without cultivating this kind of attitude.

And I'm sorry to refer to your comment when making this point. And you will likely want to tell me that I misinterpreted the statement above. Still, this is the gist of how people invoke it here.

There are better approaches. One could, for example, say simply that he who asserts must prove (this goes for any hypothesis, so it doesn't produce the same kind of attitude). Or one could go somewhat Bayesian and start talking about prior probabilities for the various hypotheses. This has two advantages: (a) it replaces the silly scholastic counting of assumptions or entities with a much more meaningful exploration of how much sense and plausibility there is for each hypothesis; (b) it is much better at making space for critical thinkers who are able to separate the questions of prior probability from the evaluation of the evidence. This is much better than lulling us into a critical slumber that requires us to accept a simpler hypothesis as preferable in some way unless it is disproved.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre

Post by Ken Olson »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 9:01 am There are better approaches. One could, for example, say simply that he who asserts must prove (this goes for any hypothesis, so it doesn't produce the same kind of attitude).
I think the principle that 'he who asserts must prove' is a restatement of Occam's razor. Both are saying a claim (entity or assumption) should not be accepted until it's necessity is demonstrated.

You apparently disagree with this (''it doesn't produce the same kind of attitude'). What is the difference you see?

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 10:10 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 9:01 am There are better approaches. One could, for example, say simply that he who asserts must prove (this goes for any hypothesis, so it doesn't produce the same kind of attitude).
I think the principle that 'he who asserts must prove' is a restatement of Occam's razor. Both are saying a claim (entity or assumption) should not be accepted until it's necessity is demonstrated.

You apparently disagree with this (''it doesn't produce the same kind of attitude'). What is the difference you see?
Preference.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre

Post by Secret Alias »

It is like Secret Mark. Goodacre prefers to consider a universe that doesn't have Secret Mark in it. That's not an argument. That's a preference. My son has the same attitude. "I want to imagine a universe where I am at the center of it." Nice work if you can get it. In the humanities you can get away with bullshit like that. Life will take care of my son. Reality is like that. The humanities are for the most part outside of reality. You can get the respect of colleagues and convince them to ignore the same reality as you want to ignore and do it with a good conscience. The murder of a text or the reputation of a dead colleague isn't punishable.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre

Post by Ken Olson »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 12:20 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 10:10 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 9:01 am There are better approaches. One could, for example, say simply that he who asserts must prove (this goes for any hypothesis, so it doesn't produce the same kind of attitude).
I think the principle that 'he who asserts must prove' is a restatement of Occam's razor. Both are saying a claim (entity or assumption) should not be accepted until it's necessity is demonstrated.

You apparently disagree with this (''it doesn't produce the same kind of attitude'). What is the difference you see?
Preference.
Do you mean it's a personal preference of yours as to which is the better way to express the same idea? (I have to admit that saying Occam's razor does seem to elicit a strong, and often negative, reaction in some people).

Or do you see a significant logical/epistemological difference between 'he who asserts must prove' and, well, the R word?

(My apologies for asking essentially the same question twice, but I'm curious as to how far apart we are on this).

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 12:49 pm Or do you see a significant logical/epistemological difference between 'he who asserts must prove' and, well, the R word?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should prefer the one that requires the fewest assumptions - Wikipedia


In his article "Sensations and Brain Processes" (1959), J. J. C. Smart invoked Occam's razor with the aim to justify his preference of the mind-brain identity theory over spirit-body dualism. - Wikipedia


Karl Popper argues that a preference for simple theories need not appeal to practical or aesthetic considerations. - Wikipedia


In philosophy, Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: novacula Occami) is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. - Wikipedia


We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible. - Ptolemy


Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities. - Bertrand Russell


The procedure of induction consists in accepting as true the simplest law that can be reconciled with our experiences. - Ludwig Wittgenstein


... the simplest hypothesis proposed as an explanation of phenomena is more likely to be the true one than is any other available hypothesis... - Richard Swinburne

Philologus
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:13 pm

Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre

Post by Philologus »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 2:31 am We are compelled to believe in the existence of Mark, Matthew and Luke because we have manuscripts. Their existence is therefore demonstrable. We do not have manuscripts of Q. The existence of Q is deduced from the shared material in Matthew and Luke that they could not have taken from Mark AND the premise that one of the evangelists could not have taken this material from the other.
[...]
I think my argument here shows that the Q theory does indeed posit additional assumptions that are in need of demonstration beyond what the Farrer theory (Luke's use of Matthew) does. Do you disagree, and if so, why?
I think both hypotheses (the Farrer hypothesis and the two-source hypothesis) make the same number of assumptions. Therefore, Occam's Razor does not favor either one of them.

Farrer assumptions
1- Matthew composed the Q material.
2- Luke copied the Q material from Matthew.

Two-Source assumptions:
1- Matthew did not compose the Q material. He copied it from another source.
2- Luke copied the Q material from that source as well.

As an analogy, if you're a professor, and two of your students submitted papers that contain a lot of shared material, you will wonder whether (1) one student copied from the other, or (2) both students copied from an unknown source. Whether one possibility is more likely than the other must be established based on the material itself and not based on a principle that favors reducing the number of sources involved!
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Does the lost Gospel Q Exist? | Dr. James McGrath Vs Dr. Mark Goodacre

Post by mlinssen »

Philologus wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 10:07 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 2:31 am We are compelled to believe in the existence of Mark, Matthew and Luke because we have manuscripts. Their existence is therefore demonstrable. We do not have manuscripts of Q. The existence of Q is deduced from the shared material in Matthew and Luke that they could not have taken from Mark AND the premise that one of the evangelists could not have taken this material from the other.
[...]
I think my argument here shows that the Q theory does indeed posit additional assumptions that are in need of demonstration beyond what the Farrer theory (Luke's use of Matthew) does. Do you disagree, and if so, why?
I think both hypotheses (the Farrer hypothesis and the two-source hypothesis) make the same number of assumptions. Therefore, Occam's Razor does not favor either one of them.

Farrer assumptions
1- Matthew composed the Q material.
2- Luke copied the Q material from Matthew.

Two-Source assumptions:
1- Matthew did not compose the Q material. He copied it from another source.
2- Luke copied the Q material from that source as well.

As an analogy, if you're a professor, and two of your students submitted papers that contain a lot of shared material, you will wonder whether (1) one student copied from the other, or (2) both students copied from an unknown source. Whether one possibility is more likely than the other must be established based on the material itself and not based on a principle that favors reducing the number of sources involved!
Hear hear.
Of course, after having observed the pathetic either-or predicament of LukeMatthew as perceived by the field, I have often desired to go back to school and write a paper together with someone else but hand in our own version of it separately so we would both have foreign material. The teacher, along the lines of biblical academic, would be unable to come to the simple and easy conclusion that we both cheated, and be forced to grade our papers according to their contents alone, and we likely would both pass
Post Reply