Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark

From: [email-masked] (Carlton L. Winbery)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 13:23:16 +0400

Maurice Robinson wrote;
>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.
>
Without going into all the evidence, I will say that I have worked thru
Linnemann's book in great detail.  I am convinced that her "amassing" such
evidence was theologically driven and at points very imaginative.  I had
the privilege of "eating tea" often with John Wenham in Oxford and
attending many debates with Wenham in 1983/84.  He and I discussed what he
was working on at the time _The Easter Enigma_ and I find his work in many
places is controled by his desire to "harmonize" all the sources.  Any
historian will do some harmonizing but at places must admit that the
records cannot be completely reconciled.  At the time that I was meeting
with Wenham, I also met fortnightly with G.D. Kilpatrick and attended G.B.
Caird's lectures on the Synoptics and Caird's NT research seminar.  In that
very rich invironment I also translated the entire Synoptic tradition verse
by verse from the Aland, Synopsis.  I now say that the documentary (no one
can say just two) hypothesis is still my working hypothesis, but it is not
totally proven.
Sincerely,

Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
[email-masked]
[email-masked]