In the last chapter of my book, I dissect Q, Burkett, and the Farrer theories using an evaluation process that comes form science.
Science and the bible. On dear…
Anyway, I want your thoughts on the validity of it. I haven’t much of a suggestion in examining critical theories in regards to the bible by scientific means… so…
The first one is comprehensiveness in which the theorist much have a theory that is large enough to examine various aspects of the issue, say, such as the synoptic problem. In other words, the theory must be encompassing of a wide and diverse range of data.
Following this is precision and testability. In other words, the theory should be well defined. The constructs of the theory are laid out and easily replicated. I would suggest that the testing be able to be replicated across non-biblical texts as well.
Parsimony requires that the theory should be focused. In other words, no theology, I believe.
The theory must have data to support it.
Heuristic value comes into play if the theory can not only be proved, but can be used to develop other theories and hypotheses.
Not sure about an applied value, since for me, the applied value of historical criticism is more sound theology.
Anyway… what do you think?