Re: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types
- On Feb 5, 2009 12:47 AM, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:
>I'm not sure I understand the logic here. Is itI'm just appealing to Kloppenborg et al.'s behavior as evidence that
> * If no one's beating it anymore, then it must really be a dead horse
> * If someone is beating it, then it must be alive and therefore the
>My first thought -- without thinking of the history of criticism-- was that
>if no one's arguing against Griesbach any more, then maybe Griesbach has
>Perhaps a different metric is needed here.
they perceive Farrer to be the (or, a?) main alternative. None of what
I posted is to establish either Farrer or Griesbach as being "accepted."
Rather, I fully recognize the current dominance of the Two-Source
I suppose I should also point out that some people who hold to the
Two-Source theory have only very vague notions of Q. Jimmy Dunn, for
instance, thinks that at least some parts of it were merely oral.
Kloppenborg also considers this view an alternative to the classical
Stephen C. Carlson
Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)