Re: Bellinzoni[ed],The Two Source Hyopothesis
Carlton L. Winbery (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:39:30 +0400
We argued the solutions to the Synoptic Problem on this forum several
months ago at some length. As I recall Perry Stepp and I took different
approaches. We finally agreed that to argue every detail would take us far
afield from translation though this question certainly affects translation
in some ways. If you are convinced that Mark was a basic source for both
Matt. and Luke (as I am at the moment), the single best argument for the
exist of some literary source(s) behind both Matt. and Luke is the total
implausibility of either of the other two alternatives. Farmer and others
have not yet answered those questions to the satisfaction of a broad
spectrum of gospel critics.
Hence we probably need a forum for arguing the various positions on gospel
relationships. However, to do the detailed analysis that it would take to
deal with the 2 Notebook proposal would overload (in my opinion) this forum
that is primarily grammatical and linquistic (especially considering the
fact that we have the opportunity to tape into the wealth of information of
the classical scholars in our midst).
Though I find these proposals intriguing and have put a bookmark at the
site so that (when time permits) I can examine them in more detail.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. NT & Greek La College