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
  • Jeff Peterson
    Chuck, I d think a literary relationship with Mt is strongly suggested by the fact that Luke augments the Marcan narrative account on both the front end and
    Message 1 of 76 , Apr 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Chuck,

      I'd think a literary relationship with Mt is strongly suggested by the fact
      that Luke augments the Marcan narrative account on both the front end and
      the back end, in spite of the fact that he represents preaching about Jesus
      as having covered the period from John's baptism (as in Mark) to Jesus'
      resurrection (Acts 10:36ff).

      Jeff Peterson

      On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > Jeff,
      >
      > Have you noticed how cleverly Lk changed the context of the word Galilee
      > into his angel's announcement? He knew his own material was going to
      > contradict Mark and he redacted Mk's ending to prepare for it.
      >
      > Lk does in fact contradict Mk, but he clearly has a literary relationship
      > with Mk. Lk does not have a literary relationship (he has no relationship at
      > all) with Mt's resurrection material.
      >
      >
      > Chuck
      >
      > Rev. Chuck Jones
      >
      > Atlanta
      >
      > --- On Fri, 4/1/11, Jeff Peterson <peterson@...> wrote:
      >
      > > From: Jeff Peterson <peterson@...>
      > > Subject: Re: Jeff Re: Resurrection appearances (was: Re: [Synoptic-L]
      > Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?)
      > > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      > > Cc: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
      > > Date: Friday, April 1, 2011, 7:49 PM
      >
      > > In Mark, if Peter and the disciples
      > > want to see Jesus, they need to leave
      > > Jerusalem and return to Galilee (more than a day's
      > > journey). Don't see any
      > > other way to read Luke 24:34 than as referring to an
      > > unnarrated appearance
      > > to Peter (reflecting, I suppose, Luke's awareness of the
      > > tradition reported
      > > by Paul in 1 Cor 15:5), but regardless vv. 36ff. describe
      > > the first
      > > appearance of the risen Christ to Peter and the
      > > Eleven/Twelve. Incompatible.
      > >
      > > Jeff Peterson
      > >
      > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
      > > wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > 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]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > > Synoptic-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >


      [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.