Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Theories receiving attention

Expand Messages
  • gentile_dave@emc.com
    I think I d venture that all three of the listed theories fail the test of basic plausibility - IF they are taken to be complete theories, with no additions
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 10, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I think I'd venture that all three of the listed theories fail the test
      of basic plausibility - IF they are taken to be complete theories, with
      no additions needed. If I were to go on and rank them according to which
      ones need the least adjustment in order to achieve plausibility I think
      I would say:



      1) 2SH

      2) FH

      3) GH



      Although, arguably 1 and 2 could be reversed.



      Maybe as a rhetorical point, it might be better to present the 3SH as
      just a variation of the accepted 2SH. Besides, while I'm convinced that
      our Luke is dependent on Matthew in part, I am agnostic on the idea that
      the autograph version of Luke is dependent on Matthew. As a matter of
      taxonomy I'm not sure it should really be called a "3 source hypothesis"
      unless the autograph of Luke depends on Matthew.



      Dave





      Dave Gentile

      Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

      EMC Captiva

      EMC Corporation

      601 Oakmont Lane,

      Westmont, IL 60559

      P: 630-321-2985

      F: 630-654-1607

      E: Gentile_Dave@...





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.