From: Brian E. Wilson (brian@twonh.demon.co.uk)
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
>>is?
>>
>>Mark replied (SNIP):
>>The Farrer Hypothesis, viz. Markan Priority; Luke's use of Matthew
>>and Mark.
>
>Mark,
> "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.
>
>Best wishes,
>Brian Wilson
>
>Bob Schacht then wrote:
>Brian,
>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.
>
>Bob
Bob,
I notice that you do not draw the conclusion that therefore Mark
Goodacre's hypothesis is simple, coherent and plausible. Neither do I.
Best wishes,
BRIAN WILSON
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:01 EDT