From: Brian E. Wilson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Feb 02 1998 - 18:38:44 EST
>>Brian Wilson wrote to Mark Goodacre (SNIP):
>>In your last posting you do not say what hypothesis you mean
>>at this point. It is not obvious to me from the context. Could you
>>please tell us what the simple, coherent and plausible hypothesis
>>Mark replied (SNIP):
>>The Farrer Hypothesis, viz. Markan Priority; Luke's use of Matthew
> "The Farrer Hypothesis" and "Markan Priority" are smoke-screens
>which indicate that you do not have a simple, coherent and plausible
>hypothesis at all. There are various mutually-incompatible versions of
>the Farrer Hypothesis, and of Markan Priority.
>I thought you might actually have stated something like - "Matthew
>copied from Mark, and Luke copied from both Matthew and Mark. No
>hypothetical sources are posited."
>This would at least have been simple.
>Bob Schacht then wrote:
>The words you suggestively put in Mark's mouth sound accurate, with the
>proviso that "written" is understood between "hypothetical" and
>"sources", because Mark does allow for our friend, Oral Trad, as a
>source for all three Gospels, if I recall correctly. Mark G. has stated
>some version of the first of your two sentences many times.
I notice that you do not draw the conclusion that therefore Mark
Goodacre's hypothesis is simple, coherent and plausible. Neither do I.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:01 EDT