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

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

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    Mark, Thanks for the note. This conversation has me noticing for the first time the freedom Lk felt, at least in the passages we re looking at, to reword his
    Message 1 of 67 , Apr 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark,

      Thanks for the note. This conversation has me noticing for the first time the freedom Lk felt, at least in the passages we're looking at, to reword his material.

      Separately, in Mk 16 // Lk 24, Lk (1) redacts (significantly) the existing material and (2) adds new material.

      In Lk vis a vis Mt 1-2 and Mt 28 there is a different phenomenon: Lk's writing shows no evidence of knowledge of the material in Mt.

      Thanks,

      Chuck

      Rev. Chuck Jones
      Atlanta, Georgia
      ____________________________

      --- On Thu, 3/31/11, Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...> wrote:

      It's been enjoyable to catch up on this discussion this evening, one of the

      liveliest on Synoptic-L for a while. It occurred to me today that

      Synoptic-L is now a teenager, having been born in 1998!



      A couple of observations. First, on the analogy between Mark 16 // Luke 24

      and Matt. 1-2 // Luke 1-2, it occurs to me that we can actually quantify the

      agreement, at least as far as it relates to verbatim agreement. As several

      have mentioned, Matt. 1.21 // Luke 1.31 has a striking sequential agreement

      (TEX[Hi/ETAI DE hUION KAI KALESEIS TO ONOMA AUTOU IHSOUN). It's seven

      conjoined words in Greek (including the singular KALESEIS which does not

      work in Luke's context). Is there anything of this length in Mark 16 //

      Luke 24? Well, the longest I can find is three words, OUK ESTIN hWDE in

      Mark 16.6 // Luke 24.6 and APO TOU MNHMEIOU in Mark 16.8 // Luke 24.9. So I

      think the analogy offered by Jeff holds, at least as far as sequential

      verbatim agreement is concerned.



      I also wanted to pick up on David Mealand's comment:



      > The mention of the names Mary and Joseph, Davidic descent, Herod,

      > and that Jesus brings salvation are all motifs more widely found

      > in texts such as those of Mark and Paul, well before Matthew and

      > Luke get going.



      I am not so sure about this. Mary does feature in Mark (6.3) but not in

      Paul. Joseph features in neither. Davidic descent is in Paul and Mark but

      Herod is not.



      All best

      Mark



      --

      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, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        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.