Scandal of the decade
'It can be concluded that Wright has not provided a convincing defence of the historicity of Mark 13' (James Crossley, The Date of Mark's Gospel, 27, italics mine)
And it started off so well: 'Wright has provided important and convincing arguments in favour of the historicity of many of the passages in the synoptic tradition' (Ibid, 20)
;-)
posted by Chris Tilling @ 12:18 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Oh dear, when you put it like that it really does lok like damning with faint praise...
He's wrong, HE'S WRONG!!
You and Wright, Jim and cats - you're both dreadfully mistaken. It's amazing what a difference context makes, isn't it?! Anyway, convincing and important can still be wrong and with wright they generally are and Mark 13 is quite a different matter from other synoptic tradition ... and you're just wicked!
Italics yours... hm... (parsing the fragmented italics...)
tbehaghtrdedconncdecisiar.
{staring}{staring some more}
Well, decisiar sounds kind of Latin. Old German? The verb does seem to be at the end of the sentence...
T be hag htr ded connc decisiar.
To be ridden (hags were Germanic witches who rode people) you must decide... to... conk a heater... dead...
... ... ... are you calling for help concerning Anna...?!
Okay I've got it: either Anna was yelling at you because you were supposed to fix the heater but you broke it instead in frustration... or... you're rejoicing because she's rewarding you for finally breaking the dang heater which was bothering her.
Am I at least on the green!? On the same fairway as the green? Even on the same golf course??!
JRP
Well done Jason via Chris you've unlocked one of the codes. But which one of you is Robert Langton and which one of you is Leigh Teabing?
Post a Comment
<< Home