Re: Jeff Re: Resurrection appearances (was: Re: [Synoptic-L] Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?)
- At 01:24 PM 4/1/2011, Jeff Peterson wrote:
>Mt and Lk are no more incompatible in their birth stories than Mk and Lk are
>in their resurrection narratives: was it Galilee or Jerusalem? The disciples
>can't have had their reunion with the risen Jesus in both places.
First, all resurrection stories end with the mysterious disappearance
of Jesus (by ascension, or whatever) so that there is no final
resting place for his mortal remains, and neither Galilee nor
Jerusalem can use his mortal remains to claim priority.
Second, it is at least plausible that after the crucifixion, some
disciples went to Galilee, but others stayed behind in Jerusalem.
Peter came from a fishing family; his return to Galilee is reported
at length in GJohn 21, and we know of archaeological claims that
Peter's home in Galilee became a church. He, at least, had a family
business to go back to-- maybe even a wife.
But the manner of Jesus' resurrection appearance in Galilee is
mystical (they don't recognize him at first), providing a clue to the
disciples who did not go back to Galilee that Jesus might appear in a
form not easily recognized at first. This could have sparked
reconsideration of previous experiences by the disciples who stayed
in Jerusalem ("Wait a minute. Remember what Cleopas told us about his
walk to Emmaus the day after the Resurrection?"), re-interpreting
them as resurrection appearances. And when you have a resurrected
body that can walk through doors and stuff, why not resurrection
appearances in more than one place?
But if Jesus' resurrected body can appear in more than one place, one
cannot make the same claim for the disciples.
Was there any one *named* disciple who was claimed to be at more than
one resurrection appearance of Jesus in the flesh?
Northern Arizona University
>Jeff Peterson[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:
> > Brad,
> > It's not that Mt and Lk should or must be compatible. It is that in their
> > birth stories (and their post-Markan resurrection stories) they are
> > incompatible in a way that they are not in any other place.
> > Chuck
> > Rev. Chuck Jones
> > Atlanta, Georgia
> > --- On Fri, 4/1/11, Brad McAdon <brad@...> wrote:
> > Why is it so important and a problem that Luke and Matthew disagree in
> > their accounts? It seems that it can only be said that their
> > incompatibility is a problem by begging the question that they SHOULD or
> > MUST be compatible.
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
I hear you. They exhaust me sometimes too. But that is what it's about....
--- On Thu, 4/7/11, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:
From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Mark Re: Chuck Re: Jeff Re: Resurrection appearances
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2011, 2:48 PM
On: Literary Relationships
It has been observed, " In synoptic studies a literary relationship does in
fact mean scribal dependence between the documents."
I respond: That is one thing that is wrong with "Synoptic Studies," and one
reason why they are still deadlocked at the present moment. If the Synoptic
Problem is to define the relations between the Synoptics (and I have
encountered that definition, more than once), and if the possible relations
are limited to scribal dependence, then the problem as stated is in fact
insoluble, and this and all other discussions on that basis are simply
taking up bandwidth, to no purpose.
E Bruce Brooks / Warring States Project / University of Massachusetts at
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]