Thanks, Peter, for the correction and the clarification, and for the reference
to Bockmuehl's article. My apologies for misinforming all.
And if Hoskyns was not directly associated with the Oxford school, then that
partly answers my question about the spread of the term "the fundamental
solution": at least one writer took the term over from Streeter.
John C. Poirier
Peter M. Head wrote:
At 08:35 AM 9/28/04 -0400, John C. Poirier wrote: (in part)
Knowing Hoskyn's association
(how close?) with the Oxford school of synoptic studies ...
Without unpicking your hesitant affirmation, suffice to say that as far as
I can see Edwyn C. Hoskyns (NB sp.) had no association with the Oxford school.
He was a Cambridge man! Even a Corpus Christi man.
Doubtless he may have read the books, but he had no association with Oxford,
and (as he says in the material you cited), was of a different (scholarly)
generation from the Oxford Studies (1911; seminar since 1894 [when Hoskyns
was 10 years old]), if not from Streeter's book (1924).
Markus Bockmuehl published an article on Hoskyns in a recent issue of Theology
(2004): 'What's Under the Microscope? Revisiting E.C. Hoskyns on the Object
of New Testament Study.' Theology 107: 3-13.
Interestingly, in that article Bockmuehl quotes C.F.D. Moule as making a
similar comment to John's, viz, that Hoskyns was a bit too comfortable in
adopting the standard positions as 'assured results' without sufficient critical
[a foreigner in Cambridge]
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l List Owner: