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

Re: Much Misunderstood GH

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 3/6/1999 9:29:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes:
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 7, 1999
      In a message dated 3/6/1999 9:29:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      scarlson@... writes:

      <<
      My sympathies are with Goulder, Goodacre and any other proponent
      of the Farrer Hypothesis, because they have to overcome much
      misunderstanding on even what the FH stands for. It does not
      help that the FH is continually misrepresented in the scholarly
      literature. As my previous posts have indicated, Johnson is not
      the only one.
      >>

      Steve, please.. a little sympathy for us too! The following is anecdotal, but
      true. One morning about ten years ago I randomly selected three books in the
      Biblicum library in Rome which would have been likely to discuss the Synoptic
      question. Unfortunately, I didn't record (or don't remember where I did
      record) their titles (though I think one of them at least was by Howard Kee,
      and at least one was in German). Anyway, in each of the three randomly
      selected books I was stunned (well, ok, the stunned part came I guess when I
      was into book # 3) to find a reference to and description of the Griesbach
      hypothesis which was fundamentally inaccurate "even on what the GH stands
      for", to borrow your expression. I think the literature in the last ten years
      has been more accurate in this regard, but the decade of the 80's was notably
      deficient when it came to describing what is now referred to as the Two Gospel
      Hypothesis... even when this description came from people who were quite
      resolute in rejecting it out of hand.

      Leonard Maluf
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.