James Covey writes:Message 1 of 3 , Dec 25 9:55 AMView SourceJames Covey writes:
<< Does anyone really think that Matthew and Luke invented
the *concept* of the virgin birth *independently*?
>>Is the VB really in Luke? I've always read it as ambiguous; I could never
convince myself, to the point where I wonder whether anyone would have seen
it there in the text if it were not for Matthew.
<I doubt very much that these earlier Matthean stories have
>been choreographed to fit predetermined proof-texts.I think if we take out "predetermined" things make more sense...
>May it not be moreI think what's been "altered" (or "stitched together," as you
>likely that something happened here that Matthew now reflects on
>theologically? And the very fact of the odd "fit" (if one can indeed call
>it that) suggests that there is not as much alteration of history as Bill
>might seem to think?
say, with OT texts) are sources, written and oral.
I find it highly improbable that those sources are what we
would call historical records.>>
If this is midrashic (for want of a better word), then there doesn't seem
to be any very clear motive or point of origin for this. If there was some
scandal around Jesus' birth (as the Pantera story might suggest, though
there's an obvious chicken/egg problem here), and/or if Jesus wasn't really
of Davidic origin (as Mark 12:35-7 might seem to suggest) then Matthew could
have been looking for a way round it, and come up with the idea of using
Isaiah 7:14. Unless, of course, it was already in use somewhere in a
Messianic context. The problem here, of course, is lack of evidence.
Mark writes:Message 1 of 3 , Dec 25 10:17 AMView SourceMark writes:
<< Right. The reason I got into this pericope was actually in a different
context, when I was writing about Marcan Priority. For it strikes
me that in so far as indicators are present, the general situation
seems to favour a (just) pre-70 date for Mark and a post-70 date for
both Matthew and Luke, and that before one has begun looking at
the internal literary questions. That just got me reflecting on Q too. >>
How 'just'? Are you suggesting that Mark 13:14-27 may have been written
during the war, perhaps by people who were aware of the advance of the Roman
armies, and applied 21-22 to the insurgents? It's certainly an interesting
idea, if that is what you mean.
... Yes; I suppose what I mean is that Mark 13 makes good sense to me if it is read against the background of the war, but it s not something I ve spent a lotMessage 1 of 3 , Jan 3, 2001View SourceOn 25 Dec 2000, at 13:17, RSBrenchley@... wrote:
> How 'just'? Are you suggesting that Mark 13:14-27 may have been writtenYes; I suppose what I mean is that Mark 13 makes good sense to
> during the war, perhaps by people who were aware of the advance of the Roman
> armies, and applied 21-22 to the insurgents? It's certainly an interesting
> idea, if that is what you mean.
me if it is read against the background of the war, but it's not
something I've spent a lot of time reflecting on, so there may be
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT
The New Testament Gateway