Sun Apr 7 00:30:16 1996

From majordom  Sun Apr  7 00:30:16 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA06184; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:30:16 +0500
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:27:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1134
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Carlton L. Winbery wrote:

> I might add that I later worked through Mann's commentary on Mark in the
> Anchor Bible written from the perspective of the Greisback hypothesis.  His
> difficulty in making sense of the text and laborous efforts to explain
> Mark's method convinced me that his was a wasted interprize.

Carlton, have you also worked through and evaluated Eta Linnemann's and 
John Wenham's current claims regarding the issue of eyewitness testimony 
as opposed to literary dependency?  Even though Linnemann is 
theologically driven, she nevertheless presents a mass of data with which 
scholars must deal if they are to hold to Markan priority and the Q 
hypothesis.

(I realize this discussion is getting off the track of textual criticism, 
so I will forego further discussion on these matters).


_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back