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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Stephen Carlson's test

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 1/7/2002 2:29:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
    Message 1 of 32 , Jan 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 1/7/2002 2:29:41 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      brian@... writes:

      << When, some time ago, I wrote about the GH being "validly ruled
      out" by Stephen Carlson's test, I was assuming Dave Gentile's basic
      assumption on which Stephen's test is based. I have since rejected this
      basic assumption, and suggested another basic assumption should be used.
      My "new approach" therefore does not accept Stephen Carlson's test as of
      any use. I would leave it to others who still accept Dave Gentile's
      position to answer your request, therefore. From my viewpoint now, the
      GH is not affected by the HHBC correlations. As I see things now, the
      correlations are a useful tool for redaction criticism, but probably
      useless for source criticism. The GH has been re-instated, together with
      the FH and 2DH.>>


      Thanks, Stephen. Now I can breath again. I will re-read the post in which you
      changed your view on the relevance of Dave's data to the resolution of the
      source question. I read it yesterday, but need to re-read it for fuller
      comprehension.

      I am of course saddened by the perspective that FH and 2 DH had to be
      reinstated along with GH. I had cherished the fervent hope to see GH rise
      alone and glorious from the ashes of HHBC correlations discussions, yielding
      to the GH the attention of minds more brilliant than my own to develop the
      very interesting implications of an essentially Griesbachian sequence of
      gospel composition. I guess I must be content for the moment with a delayed
      parousia.

      Leonard Maluf

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 1/7/2002 2:29:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
      Message 32 of 32 , Jan 7, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 1/7/2002 2:29:41 AM Eastern Standard Time,
        brian@... writes:

        << When, some time ago, I wrote about the GH being "validly ruled
        out" by Stephen Carlson's test, I was assuming Dave Gentile's basic
        assumption on which Stephen's test is based. I have since rejected this
        basic assumption, and suggested another basic assumption should be used.
        My "new approach" therefore does not accept Stephen Carlson's test as of
        any use. I would leave it to others who still accept Dave Gentile's
        position to answer your request, therefore. From my viewpoint now, the
        GH is not affected by the HHBC correlations. As I see things now, the
        correlations are a useful tool for redaction criticism, but probably
        useless for source criticism. The GH has been re-instated, together with
        the FH and 2DH.>>


        Thanks, Stephen. Now I can breath again. I will re-read the post in which you
        changed your view on the relevance of Dave's data to the resolution of the
        source question. I read it yesterday, but need to re-read it for fuller
        comprehension.

        I am of course saddened by the perspective that FH and 2 DH had to be
        reinstated along with GH. I had cherished the fervent hope to see GH rise
        alone and glorious from the ashes of HHBC correlations discussions, yielding
        to the GH the attention of minds more brilliant than my own to develop the
        very interesting implications of an essentially Griesbachian sequence of
        gospel composition. I guess I must be content for the moment with a delayed
        parousia.

        Leonard Maluf

        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.