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

Re: [Synoptic-L] nomenclature of synoptic theories (was: Eric Eve, The Devil ...

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 5/24/2005 10:11:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Joe, I m not sure what your final remark is supposed to mean, except that it appears to be
    Message 1 of 1 , May 25, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 5/24/2005 10:11:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, j.weaks@... writes:

      "Mark-Q" is nice, as is "Mark without Q". As for Griesbach, does it
      really even need a designation anymore? Folks still talk about it? ;)



      Joe, I'm not sure what your final remark is supposed to mean, except that it appears to be gratuitously provocative. I, for one, still think the Griesbach Hypothesis, mutatis mutandis, is by far the most satisfying solution to the Synoptic Problem, and that neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated the contrary. Since your final sentence doesn't contain a complete verb, I'm not sure I am reading it correctly to mean: Do folks still talk about it? If this is what you mean, then the answer is an emphatic "yes", though I also prefer the designation "Two-Gospel Hypothesis". I admit, however, that the latter designation has downsides: the possible confusion with the "Two-Document Hypothesis" (its counterpuntal alternative), and the non-exclusivity of the formulation, taken in itself, as has been pointed out by some defenders of the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis on this list.

      Leonard Maluf
      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      Weston, MA
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.