Re: Jeff Re: Resurrection appearances (was: Re: [Synoptic-L] Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?)
- Chuck, that simplest explanation isn't necessarily the only one or the simplest, I think. Doesn't it begin with a premise that the gospeleers were attempting to faithfully "write history?" If this premise is correct, there would have been no need for two separate (or more) gospels. If, however, they were giving their "spin" on the Jesus story, there is no reason to presume this.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga. USA
---- Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:
> Several posts back I wrote the following. I continue to think it has merit.
> "Here is the relationship dilemma for the two books in terms of their beginning chapters. (1) They each have an elaborate story of Jesus' birth accompanied by a genealogy, and yet (2) they tell two completely different stories (3) that have almost no verbal overlap and, most importantly, (4) that are completely incompatible with each other.
> "In other words, the structure of Mt and Lk is the same, but the content of the new material within that structure is different. (On the occasions when their genealogies overlap they had a common source available, I Chronicles 1-9.)
> "The most likely explanation of this phenomenon is that Lk had heard about Mt's gospel but had never seen or heard it. I'm *not* saying this is the most likely explanation of the overall relationship of the two books. I am saying that it is the most likely explanation of the relationship of the birth stories."
> Rev. Chuck Jones
> Atlanta, Georgia
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]