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

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

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    Good work on the Greek analysis, David.  It explains why this would be the only phrase the two have in common.  In fact, I imagine this phrase is the source
    Message 1 of 67 , Apr 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Good work on the Greek analysis, David.  It explains why this would be the only phrase the two have in common.  In fact, I imagine this phrase is the source of the angelic announcement tradition about Jesus.  Just as the verse cited in Mt. is the source of the tradition that he was born in Bethlehem.

      Thanks,

      Chuck

      Rev. Chuck JonesAtlanta, Georgia

      --- On Sat, 4/2/11, David Mealand <D.Mealand@...> wrote:

      From: David Mealand <D.Mealand@...>
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011, 10:47 AM

      But my point is that the similarity of wording in

      Matthew 1.21 and in Luke 1.31 is due to the use

      of regular Septuagintal Greek language for

      predicting pregnancy, birth, and the naming of

      a child. Isai.7.14 has very similar wording,

      but Genesis 16.11 (Gk) also has an angel announcing

      SU E)N GASTRI E)XEIS KAI TECHI UI(ON KAI KALESEIS

      TO ONOMA AU)TOU I)SMAHL

      This has a ten word match between the Greek of

      Genesis and that of Luke, with eight in sequence.





      [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.