3 weeks ago (was: Authorship of Matthew..)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>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


STEVEN CARR
I would go for c

STEVE CR
Thanks, it was a trilemma.

Steve Carson-Rowland
Brisbane, Australia
(Witty or incisive quote pending)

• Previous message: 3 weeks ago (was: Authorship of Matthew..)
• Next message: Baptism necessary?(Vaugh)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]