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

Re: Chuck Re: Hypothetical documents Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    Bob, Thanks for the follow up.  I did read the irony in the note backwards.  I hang around the group and usually only read.  I ve been amazed at the
    Message 1 of 67 , Apr 6 11:49 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Bob,
      Thanks for the follow up.  I did read the irony in the note backwards.  I hang around the group and usually only read.  I've been amazed at the conversation my post initiated.  I've made the comment before.  Weird but fun.
      Chuck

      --- On Tue, 4/5/11, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:

      From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
      Subject: Chuck Re: Hypothetical documents Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 4:57 PM
















       









      At 12:09 PM 4/5/2011, Chuck Jones wrote:

      >Bob,

      >

      >Your post and the quote from Mark's post

      >underline how much our emotions are involved in

      >these discussions. Â It's hard to strive for

      >objectivity and root for a team at the same time.



      Chuck,

      You're relatively new around here, aren't you?

      And perhaps you didn't notice my "wink". My mock

      horror at the idea of abandoning Q was intended

      as a sly reference to Mark's book, *The Case

      Against Q* (2002). If you haven't read it, you

      probably should. The most prominent emotion

      involved was a chuckle of joviality.



      Oh, BTW, welcome to Synoptic-L!



      Bob Schacht

      Northern Arizona University



      >--- On Tue, 4/5/11, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:

      >

      >From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>

      >Subject: Hypothetical documents Re: [Synoptic-L]

      >Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?

      >To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

      >Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 12:20 PM

      >

      >

      > At 08:41 AM 4/5/2011, Mark Goodacre wrote:

      >

      > >...Let me conclude with a provocative statement. If, as David suggests,

      > >the case is even-stephens, then I suggest that we prefer the case that

      > >dispenses with a hypothetical document.

      >

      >What?!? B-b-but that would mean a world without Q! How can that be?!?!?

      >

      >;-)

      >

      >Bob Schacht

      >Northern Arizona University



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



























      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chuck Jones
      Bob, Thanks for the follow up.  I did read the irony in the note backwards.  I hang around the group and usually only read.  I ve been amazed at the
      Message 67 of 67 , Apr 6 11:49 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Bob,
        Thanks for the follow up.  I did read the irony in the note backwards.  I hang around the group and usually only read.  I've been amazed at the conversation my post initiated.  I've made the comment before.  Weird but fun.
        Chuck

        --- On Tue, 4/5/11, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:

        From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
        Subject: Chuck Re: Hypothetical documents Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 4:57 PM
















         









        At 12:09 PM 4/5/2011, Chuck Jones wrote:

        >Bob,

        >

        >Your post and the quote from Mark's post

        >underline how much our emotions are involved in

        >these discussions. Â It's hard to strive for

        >objectivity and root for a team at the same time.



        Chuck,

        You're relatively new around here, aren't you?

        And perhaps you didn't notice my "wink". My mock

        horror at the idea of abandoning Q was intended

        as a sly reference to Mark's book, *The Case

        Against Q* (2002). If you haven't read it, you

        probably should. The most prominent emotion

        involved was a chuckle of joviality.



        Oh, BTW, welcome to Synoptic-L!



        Bob Schacht

        Northern Arizona University



        >--- On Tue, 4/5/11, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:

        >

        >From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>

        >Subject: Hypothetical documents Re: [Synoptic-L]

        >Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?

        >To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

        >Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 12:20 PM

        >

        >

        > At 08:41 AM 4/5/2011, Mark Goodacre wrote:

        >

        > >...Let me conclude with a provocative statement. If, as David suggests,

        > >the case is even-stephens, then I suggest that we prefer the case that

        > >dispenses with a hypothetical document.

        >

        >What?!? B-b-but that would mean a world without Q! How can that be?!?!?

        >

        >;-)

        >

        >Bob Schacht

        >Northern Arizona University



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



























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