I must say that your site is very interesting and its appearance is
very professional. Naturally, I would want to hear more about it, and
so I am eagerly waiting for your article to come out next year. As a
result, it's hard to evaluate the 2NH without understanding the nature
and contents of the two notebooks (denominated N1 and N2) better, but it
would seem difficult to reconcile the 2SH, 2GH, and FGM (Farrer-Goulder
Model, Bellinzoni's term).
Under the 2SH, N1 and N2 would be like Mark and Q, but not necessarily
respectively. Now, under the 2NH, N2 is directly dependent upon N1, yet
Mark and Q are generally thought to be independent (e.g. Streeter 1926).
Even so, Q is often considered to be the earlier, and if there is a
dependence it is probably Mark upon Q rather than vice versa (Streeter
1911). So, under the 2SH N1 would be like Q (a quasi-Q) and N2 a quasi-
If we look at the 2GH, in which Matthew is first, used by Luke, and the
two conflated by Mark, then N1 would be a quasi-Matthew, and N2 = q-Lk.
Under the FGM (Markan priority but no Q), N1 is a q-Mk, and N2 is a q-Mt.
Therefore, without understanding the character of the two hypothetical
notebooks better it would seem to that it would be very difficult to
reconcile the three theories because each theory demands incompatible
characters for N1 and N2: N1 is either a quasi-Q, Mt, or Mk; N2 is
either a quasi-Mk, Lk, Mt; for the 2SH, 2GH, and FGM respectively. I
can't see how each theory can make the nature of N1 and N2 any more
-- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, email@example.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35