A Response to Richard Bauckham and Heike Omerzu
My two reviewers choose to focus on the central section of my book and to pass over its wider argument, which is an attempt to rehabilitate the canonical form of the fourfold gospel as an object of study in its own right. Both reviewers are understandably preoccupied with my critique of the Q hypoth...
| Κύριος συγγραφέας: | |
|---|---|
| Τύπος μέσου: | Ηλεκτρονική πηγή Άρθρο |
| Γλώσσα: | Αγγλικά |
| Έλεγχος διαθεσιμότητας: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Φόρτωση...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Έκδοση: |
Sage
2014
|
| Στο/Στη: |
Journal for the study of the New Testament
Έτος: 2014, Τόμος: 37, Τεύχος: 2, Σελίδες: 210-218 |
| Άλλες λέξεις-κλειδιά: | B
Canon
B Gospel |
| Διαθέσιμο Online: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Παράλληλη έκδοση: | Ηλεκτρονική πηγή
|
| Σύνοψη: | My two reviewers choose to focus on the central section of my book and to pass over its wider argument, which is an attempt to rehabilitate the canonical form of the fourfold gospel as an object of study in its own right. Both reviewers are understandably preoccupied with my critique of the Q hypothesis and with the ‘L/M’ and ‘SC’ hypotheses with which I propose to replace it, and much of my response is therefore concerned with these issues. I also engage with Bauckham’s attempt to distance non-canonical gospel texts from the canonical ones, and with Omerzu’s proposed ‘complexity theory’ of gospel origins. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1745-5294 |
| Περιλαμβάνει: | Enthalten in: Journal for the study of the New Testament
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/0142064X14557605 |