Talk:Two-gospel hypothesis
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merge:[edit]
The material in this article is already covered in the merge-to page, which itself treats this hypothesis as a version of itself. Lostcaesar 09:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The issue that the Augustinian Hypothesis and the Griesbach Hypothesis address is the Synoptic Problem. Since the Augustinian Hypothesis dates back to the 5.century while the Griesbach Hypothesis only dates to the 18.century, it would be prudent to avoid merging the two Hypotheses. Although the models that they propose for solving the Synoptic Problem look very similar, the rationale behind each model is rather different. From an historical perspective it would be mis-leading to conflate the two Hypotheses. Now, if the content of the two individual articles is to be merged, then the compilation should be entitled "Synoptic Problem," not "Augustinian Hypothesis." Brlinus 12:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The Griesbach Hypothesis differers from the Augstinian Hypothesis in that, while Matthew was written first, it was Luke that was written second and that Mark was a compilation of both. This confuses some scholars because Mark is a shorter book and it would follow that the shorter book was written earlier. Later writings embellish the earlier and are longer. Griesbach's theory has been build upon by late DOM Bernard Orchard of the Gospel Research Institute in Ealing Abbey, London. Orchard argues that Mark was the product of a stenographer taking notes during Peter's lecture series in Rome where he read alternatively from Matthew and Luke while telling his own Gospel story. This offers a convincing explanation to why Mark is shorter, uses more basic Greek and style, and why the chronology seems to zig zag. William Reuben Farmer (1964) also offers a variation on the Griesbach Hypothesis. Since there is a lot of scholarly work being done on this theory in recent times, it would be helpful to leave it as a separate article. However, I would not have a problem with the solution offered by Brlinus above. J. David Judd 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Lead[edit]
The lead takes ages before it hints at a short introduction to the subject. It needs to have a first sentence that says what the 2GH is. Myrvin (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I've done a couple of changes, but I still think the lead is too long and convoluted for a lead. Much of iy should be moved to the article body. Myrvin (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
BTW, is "plug" a real term? Myrvin (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)