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, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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


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

      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.