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

Re: Jeff Re: Resurrection appearances (was: Re: [Synoptic-L] Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?)

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... OK, Mark 16:7 instructs that Peter be *told* that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, and then in 14:28 says after I am raised
    Message 1 of 76 , Apr 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      At 03:08 PM 4/1/2011, Jeff Peterson wrote:
      >Bob,
      >
      >The point of incompatibility is that the first
      >appearance to Peter and the disciples around him
      >("the Eleven," as Luke calls htem after Judas'
      >death) cannot have taken place both after the
      >disciples return to Galilee (as is foreshadowed
      >in Mark 16:7 and 14:28) and on the same first
      >day of the week when the tomb was discovered
      >empty (as it did according to Luke 24:13, 33f, 36ff).

      OK, Mark 16:7 instructs that Peter be *told* that
      "he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you
      will see him," and then in 14:28 says "after I am
      raised up, I will go before you to Galilee," but
      doesn't say exactly when. So it's not necessarily
      the "same" first day of the week.

      Luke 24:33f is the key to the Luke sequence, which states,
      >33 That same hour they got up and returned to
      >Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together.
      >34 They were saying, "The Lord has risen indeed,
      >and he has appeared to Simon!"

      This seems to imply that Simon (aka Peter?) was
      either Cleopas' companion on the road to Emmaus
      (If so, why wasn't this mentioned?), or is a
      backwards reference to Peter NOT seeing him in
      the grave where he was supposed to be. Or maybe
      there are two sets of "they's," the two who had
      just returned to Jerusalem, and the Eleven with
      their companions. Simon could have been one of
      the Eleven, having seen Jesus in resurrected form
      in some other, unreported context.

      So I don't see these two accounts as being
      incompatible, unless we import information from other Gospels.

      What am I missing?

      Bob Schacht
      Northern Arizona University



      >I'm not trying to sort out the history behind
      >the appearance narratives, just making a point
      >about the Marcan and Lucan resurrection
      >narratives, which are as incompatible with one
      >another as the Matthean and Lucan birth narratives.
      >
      >Jeff
      >
      >On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Bob Schacht
      ><<mailto:r_schacht@...>r_schacht@...> wrote:
      >
      >At 01:24 PM 4/1/2011, Jeff Peterson wrote:
      > >Chuck,
      > >
      > >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.
      >Why not?
      >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?
      >Bob Schacht
      >Northern Arizona University
      > >Jeff Peterson
      > >
      > >On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Chuck Jones
      > <<mailto:chuckjonez%40yahoo.com>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
      > <<mailto:brad%40mcadon.com>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>http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo!
      > Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chuck Jones
      Bruce, I hear you.  They exhaust me sometimes too.  But that is what it s about.... Chuck ... From: E Bruce Brooks Subject: RE:
      Message 76 of 76 , Apr 7, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce,

        I hear you.  They exhaust me sometimes too.  But that is what it's about....

        Chuck

        --- 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
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, April 7, 2011, 2:48 PM
















         









        To: Synoptic

        On: Literary Relationships

        From: Bruce



        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.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks / Warring States Project / University of Massachusetts at

        Amherst



























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