The Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis, without arrowsJoel WattsPosted on January 30, 2014Other Posts 7 CommentsI blame Anthony Le Donne for this creation.Please Share this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading...Related
Hi Joel,I tried asking what the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre theory was at the Jesus blog, but my question wasn’t published. Perhaps you could answer the question for them. I would appreciate it very much.Reply
Sure thing, Bilbo.http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/farrer.htmEssentially, it is the theory that Mark wrong first. Matthew used Mark. Luke used Matthew and Mark.No Q is needed. That above link is from the essay by Farrer.Reply
this speaks to me… I see a butterfly.
-anthony
Hi Joel,
I tried asking what the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre theory was at the Jesus blog, but my question wasn’t published. Perhaps you could answer the question for them. I would appreciate it very much.
Sure thing, Bilbo.
http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/farrer.htm
Essentially, it is the theory that Mark wrong first. Matthew used Mark. Luke used Matthew and Mark.
No Q is needed. That above link is from the essay by Farrer.
Thanks, Joel.
For the record, Joel, according to spell-check, you’ve misspelled “Farrer-Goulder”.
that’s modern science and i don’t need no stinkin science