Sam, Chr & Josephus
mc2499 at mclink.it
Wed Mar 14 22:57:06 EST 2001
>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.
I can understand why, Stephen. You don't have much to say about anything regarding
the matters of the list. You get your fella to be the mouth piece of your trivial
attack. Yes, I can understand that you won't pursue this further.
More information about the b-hebrew