3 weeks ago (was: Authorship of Matthew..)
Ian & Pam Dorion dorioni@ipa.net
Sat, 01 Nov 1997 06:53:21 -0600 (00878410401, 345B2641.4EFB@ipa.net)
Steve Carson-Rowland wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> Over three weeks ago, I wrote a voluminous post outlining some reasons why
> Matthew the disciple of Jesus was not considered to be the author of 'The
> Gospel according to Matthew'.
>
> At the end I wrote:
>
> "As well as your views on the authorship of 'Matthew's gospel', I'd also be
> interested to know if the method of arguments here (poorly reproduced of
> course, except where I've copied) fit your definition of 'valid higher
> criticism' or 'higher criticism where many of the objective results are
> made to coincide with a subjective, rationalistic, anti-supernatural,
> humanistic outlook.' "
>
> Any reply to this? I'm always disappointed when I get no response at all to
> a post, because I don't know whether my arguments are:
> a) incomprehensible
> b) ridiculous
> c) fabulously argued and decisive for all time
>
> Steve Carson-Rowland
> Brisbane, Australia
> (Witty or incisive quote pending)
IAN
I'm beginning to think that Matt went clippity-clop.