> >On 5 Aug 98, at 12:04, Bob Schacht wrote:Bob S. mused:
> >> test
> >> (What is this, a slow traffic day? Here it is, lunch hour, and no new
> >> CrossTalk messages to respond to!)
> At 07:05 PM 8/5/98 -0400, Lewis Reich replied:
> >Seems to happen sometimes. I've been wondering if something's wrong with
> >my b-hebrew subscription; haven't gotten anything in over two weeks...
>And Mahlon's marking exams, updating webpages & entertaining company
> Must be cuz steve d. is off on vacation and mark g. is busy with something.
> Maybe if I have time later tonight I'll see if I can drag some old
> chestnuts out, or maybe foment something new....
Mahlon H. Smith,
Department of Religion
New Brunswick NJ
- On 5 Aug 98 at 17:05, Bob Schacht wrote:
> Must be cuz steve d. is off on vacation and mark g. is busy with something.Yes, busy with other things (writing, family), and off on holiday at the end of
> Maybe if I have time later tonight I'll see if I can drag some old chestnuts
> out, or maybe foment something new.... Bob
the week, so this is signing off for now. If you want something interesting
to chew on, why not have a look at Farmer's SNTS Synoptic Problem paper, "The
Present State of the Synoptic Problem", being delivered round about now in
Copenhagen. I have uploaded it to:
I am going to put my comments on the paper on Synoptic-L tomorrow if I can find
Happy summertime to all
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept. of Theology Tel: +44 (0)121 414 7512
University of Birmingham Fax: +44 (0)121 414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT
World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q
>From: "Stevan Davies" <miser17@...>Yeah, but unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke 3:21-22 separates the descent of the
>Yes I do hold that view and defend it in J the H.
>IMO it all makes perfectly good sense.
>Others have liked the bapt as history because of its embarassment
>factors and multiple attestation. And in Acts the bapt of John
>and getting the spirit are carefully separated and two entirely
HS onto Jesus from the baptism too, so what does Acts prove? Or are you back
to your notion, which intrigues me, that Acts was written before Luke, say,
in the 60s, and then Luke 1-2 was added last of all? Am I remembering that
correctly? It's been a while since I've been tuned into Davies-speak, except
for the Davies textbook intro to the NT, which I also used this semester:
getting to like that volume more and more every time I use it.
Thomas A. Kopecek, Religion and History
Central College, Pella, Iowa 50219
- Apologies for sending a test message, but I think the work that has been
affecting others has finally come my way. I don't seem to be receiving any
recent CT postings.
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626