Sam, Chr & Josephus
Stephen C. Carlson
scarlson at mindspring.com
Wed Mar 14 22:38:52 EST 2001
At 11:59 PM 3/14/01 +0100, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>>I did deal briefly with that meagre evidence on
>>11th March, and Stephen Carlson did in more detail.
>Stephen merely stated his faith in things which allowed him not to accept the
>priority of GMk in the synoptic problem, his Lachmann fallacy fallacy.
This is the second time you've mentioned the your so-called
"Lachmann fallacy fallacy" with the implication that the
Butler's analysis of the Lachmann fallacy is wrong. It is
not, and, in fact, his analysis is supported by today's
leading scholars of the synoptic problem, including Kloppenborg,
Tuckett, Sanders, etc., all of whom also support the priority
of Mark. The Lachmann fallacy is not a reason to reject Mark's
priority, and there remain plenty of compelling reasons to support
that conclusion. On the other hand, the Lachmann fallacy is
a reason for rejecting slopping thinking and has applications
in other fields.
I realize it must be embarrassing to have been caught in what
Butler termed "a schoolboyish error of elementary reasoning"
(1951: 63), so I won't pursue this further.
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.com
Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
More information about the b-hebrew