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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Eric Eve, The Devil in the Detail

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    ... Yes; I was employing the terminology used in Eve s paper (2DH) throughout, rather than introducing that in Boring s (2SH). Are you drawing a distinction
    Message 1 of 5 , May 21, 2005
      On Saturday, May 21, 2005, Joseph Weaks wrote:

      > Ken,
      > First off, when you are saying 2DH ("two document hypothesis"), are you
      > really meaning 2SH ("two source hypothesis", ie. Matthew and Luke each
      > used Mark independently)? If not, I don't understand you at all.

      Yes; I was employing the terminology used in Eve's paper (2DH) throughout,
      rather than introducing that in Boring's (2SH). Are you drawing a
      distinction between the 2DH and 2SH?

      > I think you're right that if Eric's paper lacks a reference to Boring's
      > treatment, it is an oversight. However, I find American scholars'
      > engagement with the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis to be consistently lacking
      > up through that time period. It has only been in the last decade that the
      > newest work and (most of all) clarity regarding the
      > Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis has obtained influence across the pond.

      I think it's still fairly rare to see serious engagement with the Farrer
      theory by advocates of the 2DH (or 2SH, 2ST, or ZQT) who are willing to look
      at it on its own terms without introducing 2DH presupppositions into the
      analysis. Kloppenborg and Derrenbacker (I should probably have added the
      latter's dissertation, soon to be published in the BETL series, to my
      bibliographical suggestions), in Canada are better than most, as are
      Neirynck and some of his students from Leuven, and Tuckett in the UK.

      Best,

      Ken

      Kenneth A. Olson
      MA, History, University of Maryland
      PhD Student, Theology, University of Birmingham

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Joseph Weaks
      ... Well, my problem is when I hear Two Document Hypothesis , I can t help but be thinking Two Gospel Hypothesis . I ve always thought 2DH is a poor
      Message 2 of 5 , May 21, 2005
        On May 22, 2005, at 1:07 AM, Ken Olson wrote:
        > On Saturday, May 21, 2005, Joseph Weaks wrote:
        >> Ken,
        >> First off, when you are saying 2DH ("two document hypothesis"), are
        >> you really meaning 2SH ("two source hypothesis", ie. Matthew and Luke
        >> each used Mark independently)? If not, I don't understand you at all.
        >
        > Yes; I was employing the terminology used in Eve's paper (2DH)
        > throughout,
        > rather than introducing that in Boring's (2SH). Are you drawing a
        > distinction between the 2DH and 2SH?

        Well, my problem is when I hear "Two Document Hypothesis", I can't help
        but be thinking "Two Gospel Hypothesis". I've always thought "2DH" is
        a poor synonym for "2SH". For one, 2SH advocates need not argue that Q
        was a document (though most do).
        Is this yet another difference between scholars on each side of the
        pond?

        Joe

        **************************************************************
        Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
        Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
        j.weaks@...

        The Macintosh Biblioblog http://macbiblioblog.blogspot.com
        "All things Macintosh for the Bible Scholar"
        **************************************************************


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.