Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Synoptic-L] Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Hi Chuck, Let s accept your premise, for the sake of argument, that there is no evidence of a literary link between Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2. Does the absence
    Message 1 of 67 , Mar 29, 2011
      Hi Chuck,

      Let's accept your premise, for the sake of argument, that there is no
      evidence of a literary link between Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2. Does the
      absence of evidence of a link here have any bearing on the evidence for a
      link elsewhere? To clarify the question further, let's work by analogy with
      Luke's use of Mark. Luke 4.16-30 has only scant connections with Mark 6.1-6
      (Rejection at Nazareth). Does the absence of evidence of a direct literary
      link there have any bearing on the evidence for a link between Luke and Mark
      elsewhere?

      All best
      Mark

      On 29 March 2011 14:27, Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > Ron and all,
      >
      > I remember in the first lecture I heard on the synoptic problem the
      > professor underlined that the problem is this: Mt, Mk and Lk clearly have a
      > literary (i.e., written) relationship with each other. The problem to be
      > solved is What is the nature of that relationship?
      >
      > So, here's my annual note observing that it is impossible to argue that
      > there is a *written* relationship between Mt and Lk in the birth stories.
      > They have in common four characters, three names, two village locations, and
      > one phrase of dialog. There is no literary (written) dependence, in either
      > direction, between Mt and Lk in their first two chapters.
      >
      > This absence has to be accounted for in one's solution of the synoptic
      > problem.
      >
      > Likewise, the same phenomenon occurs in most of Mt and Lk's resurrection
      > accounts, once we get past their parallels to Mk 16:1-8. This too must be
      > accounted for.
      >
      > Wistfully,
      >
      >
      > Rev. Chuck Jones
      > Atlanta, Georgia
      > ________________________
      >
      >
      > Ron wrote:
      >
      > Firstly I think Kloppenborg¹s accusation of ³special pleading² in regard to
      >
      > Mark Goodacre¹s evidence of Luke¹s dependence on Matthew in the birth
      >
      > stories is quite uncalled for. Dependence can range from slavish to very
      >
      > selective. In the latter case the evidence is not as strong by itself, but
      >
      > it can form part of a case which is cumulatively strong.
      >
      >
      >



      --
      Mark Goodacre
      Duke University
      Department of Religion
      Gray Building / Box 90964
      Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
      Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

      http://www.markgoodacre.org


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chuck Jones
      Bob, Thanks for the follow up.  I did read the irony in the note backwards.  I hang around the group and usually only read.  I ve been amazed at the
      Message 67 of 67 , Apr 6 11:49 AM
        Bob,
        Thanks for the follow up.  I did read the irony in the note backwards.  I hang around the group and usually only read.  I've been amazed at the conversation my post initiated.  I've made the comment before.  Weird but fun.
        Chuck

        --- On Tue, 4/5/11, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:

        From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
        Subject: Chuck Re: Hypothetical documents Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 4:57 PM
















         









        At 12:09 PM 4/5/2011, Chuck Jones wrote:

        >Bob,

        >

        >Your post and the quote from Mark's post

        >underline how much our emotions are involved in

        >these discussions. Â It's hard to strive for

        >objectivity and root for a team at the same time.



        Chuck,

        You're relatively new around here, aren't you?

        And perhaps you didn't notice my "wink". My mock

        horror at the idea of abandoning Q was intended

        as a sly reference to Mark's book, *The Case

        Against Q* (2002). If you haven't read it, you

        probably should. The most prominent emotion

        involved was a chuckle of joviality.



        Oh, BTW, welcome to Synoptic-L!



        Bob Schacht

        Northern Arizona University



        >--- On Tue, 4/5/11, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:

        >

        >From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>

        >Subject: Hypothetical documents Re: [Synoptic-L]

        >Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?

        >To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

        >Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 12:20 PM

        >

        >

        > At 08:41 AM 4/5/2011, Mark Goodacre wrote:

        >

        > >...Let me conclude with a provocative statement. If, as David suggests,

        > >the case is even-stephens, then I suggest that we prefer the case that

        > >dispenses with a hypothetical document.

        >

        >What?!? B-b-but that would mean a world without Q! How can that be?!?!?

        >

        >;-)

        >

        >Bob Schacht

        >Northern Arizona University



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



























        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.