Chuck, yes there was analytical work, but what was it based upon? It seems
to me it was based on the idea that Luke and Matt, in order to have so much
the same yet so much different, could not have been interdependent. (?) This
(to me) is a fictive assumption. It is creating a "problem" when one might
or might not exist. It seems more "faith based," possibly based on the
assumption that the authors were faithful scribes who would have not varied
so much, had they known of each other's work. I'm not sure this is an
assumption of merit.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
] On Behalf
Of Chuck Jones
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] J and P (with Excursus on Mk 13 and the Gentiles)
Thanks for addressing J and P for me. Your remarks do help me get a bigger
picture of your approach to the scholarship of others.
Separately, Miriam-Webster defines "fictive" this way:
1. Not genuine
2. Relating to imaginative creation
3. Relating to fiction.
It seems to me that the hypothesis that Mt and Lk were independent and
relied on two shared sources--right or wrong, persuasive or not--is the
result of analytical work, not the product of pure imagination.
Rev. Chuck Jones
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]