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

Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?

Expand Messages
  • Brad McAdon
    David Mealand wrote: [snip] Was Matthew the first to invoke Isai 7.14 (Greek)? How do we weigh the probability that Luke obtained this from Matthew against the
    Message 1 of 67 , Apr 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      David Mealand wrote:

      [snip]

      Was Matthew the first to invoke Isai 7.14 (Greek)? How do we weigh the
      probability that Luke obtained this from Matthew against the probability
      that it had been in circulation perhaps as much as a decade or two
      before Matthew, and was known by Luke independently? (I am not arguing
      that the tradition in question needs to be earlier than say 55CE.)

      Brad responds:

      Is there any evidence at all that a tradition concerning Is. 7.14
      existed prior to Matthew?

      A date for Matthew would have to be established first, it seems, but if
      Matthew is a first-century document, then there does not seem to be any
      tradition of either the virgin birth or use of Is. 7.14 in the early
      Christian literature that traditionally pre-dates Matthew.

      Moreover, the explicit or (arguably) implicit use of Is. 7.14 does not
      appear in any of the other canonical NT texts (except for possibly Lk.
      1.31).

      The virgin birth narrative is also absent from every one of the texts of
      the so-called Apostolic Fathers except for those attributed to Ignatius
      (Eph. 7.2; 8.2; 19.1-2; 20.2; Mag. 11.1; Tral. 9.2; and Smyr. 1.1-2),
      but there is no explicit reference to Is. 7.14 even in these. Different
      commentators date Ignatius’ texts anywhere from ca. 110 or so to the
      140s (I lean toward the later). If a later date is accepted, this might
      suggest that a tradition of the virgin birth was not of much importance
      to early Christians. (It is also worth noting here that there are
      aspects of Ignatius’ virgin birth narratives that do not square with our
      canonical accounts.) But even if any of the earlier dates for Ignatius'
      texts are accepted, reference to the virgin birth narrative would still
      be limited to Ignatius among the so-called Apostolic Fathers.

      It is with Justin Martyr (ca. 150s) that we find the first explicit
      reference to Is. 7.14 (1 Apol. 33).

      So, if an earlier tradition of Is. 7.14 circulated prior to Matthew, it
      seems significant that it is not attested in any other early Christian
      literature prior to about the 150s.

      Thus, it seems that there was not much interest in Is. 7.14 or the
      virgin birth among the earliest Christian writers, and, if this is the
      case, this may argue against Luke’s use of 7.14 in Lk. 1.31 (especially
      when there seems to be compelling evidence that the author of Luke did
      use Matthew)?

      Brad McAdon
    • 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.