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
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    Chuck wrote: Lk does not have a literary relationship (he has no relationship at all) with Mt s resurrection material. Sure he does, Chuck. You just have to
    Message 1 of 76 , Apr 3, 2011
      Chuck wrote:

      Lk does not have a literary relationship (he has no relationship at
      all) with Mt's resurrection material.

      Sure he does, Chuck. You just have to know (1) where to look for it,
      and (2) how to look for it.

      1. Where to look for it

      As I have pointed out a number of times on this list, Luke removed the
      entire motif of the human attempt to block the resurrection message
      through the use of a great stone over the tomb of Jesus (cf. Matt
      27:62-66) and of God's defeat of this attempt (Matt 28:2-5) from his
      resurrection account and transferred it into Acts, where associated
      Matthean motifs function in connection with the story of the same
      Jewish authorities' attempt to block the apostolic (resurrection)
      message by imprisoning its heralds. (This is analogous to what Luke
      did, e.g., with the theme of the Christian "attack" on God's temple,
      which he transferred from Matt 26:59-61, with closer parallels to this
      than to Mk 14:55-58, into the story of Stephen's trial in Acts
      [6:11-14]). If you follow this motif (hint: there are more than one
      story of apostolic imprisonment in Acts; read them all, at least as far
      as chapter 16) you will find plenty of evidence of literary
      relationship -- even exact verbal agreement -- between these stories
      and the finale of Matthew's Gospel. I could spell these all out for you
      in detail, but it is much more fun to discover them for yourself.
      (Heck, I have already robbed you of half the pleasure by telling you
      exactly where to go to hunt for your Easter eggs.)

      2. how to look for it

      This opens up a whole new and complex subject which I cannot treat here
      in full. I would, however, say this much: it is simply arbitrary to
      assume that only evidence of copying between Gospel writings can
      demonstrate a writer's use of his predecessor's work (this, apart from
      the question of directionality). And I think we need to be open to the
      likelihood that Gospel writers, who clearly took great care to
      structure their own Gospels, were aware of such structures in the work
      of their predecessors as well. If we are open to this, the next
      important question is: how would these secondary writers have responded
      to this awareness? Would they have simply fallen into a routine copy
      mechanism here, or would they have viewed these structure-laden
      elements of source documents as precisely signatured material not to be
      infringed, but rather to be emulated through the use of creatively
      devised analogous structures? I would argue that the latter is
      certainly the case, for ancients as it would be for moderns. The point
      can be verified between Matthew and Luke: even where there is the
      highest level of material copying, i.e., in sayings "material," there
      is invariably a reluctance on the part of the second writer to simply
      copy or adopt the clear literary structures within which these words
      are given to us in Matthew. The distinction between matter and form is
      not a modern conceit, but one to which the ancients were perhaps even
      more sensitive than we.

      Applying this to present case: the phrase PANTA TA ETHNE, which is
      common to Matthew's and Luke's final commissioning by Jesus of the
      eleven, in Matt, and of the 11 + (cf. Lk 24:33) in Lk, should probably
      not be regarded as insignificant. But if you are looking for Luke to
      simply copy from Matthew the great inclusion ("behold I am with
      always..") with Jesus' name Emmanuel in Matt 1:23, it just isn't going
      to happen. No, instead Luke will be thinking of something analogous to
      do. Perhaps an echo of Jesus' other name given in Matt 1:21: "...Jesus,
      because he will save his people from their sins" can be creatively
      evoked by Luke here (cf. Lk 24:47). And of course the presence of Jesus
      with the apostles in their apostolic mission can be substituted by
      Luke's understanding of how that presence is communicated (i.e.,
      through the communication of a DYNAMIS from on high: cf. 24:49).

      Leonard Maluf
    • 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

        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
        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.


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


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