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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , May 21 11:39 PM
      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.