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

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

Expand Messages
  • Brad McAdon
    Chuck wrote: Good work on the Greek analysis [of Mt. 1.21 and Lk. 1.31], David. It explains why this would be the only phrase the two have in common. Brad
    Message 1 of 67 , Apr 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Chuck wrote:

      Good work on the Greek analysis [of Mt. 1.21 and Lk. 1.31], David. It
      explains why this would be the only phrase the two have in common.

      Brad responds:

      Chuck,

      Are you forgetting:

      1) “in the days of Herod the king”:

      EN HEMERAIS HRWDOU TOU BASILEWS (Mt. 2.1)

      and

      EN TAIS HHEMERAIS HRWDOU BASILEWS (Lk. 1.5)?

      According to a TLG search, this phrase does not occur in Greek
      literature prior to Matthew.

      It seems significant that this phrase is employed at the outset of each
      author’s birth narrative.

      2) “great joy”

      CHARAN MEGALEN (Mt. 2.10)

      and

      CHARAN MEGALEN (Lk. 2.10).

      It seems significant that this phrase occurs in both narratives in the
      passages wherein the visitors visit the child. In Mt., the narrator
      informs us that the magoi were “overjoyed” when they saw the star,
      whereas in Lk. the angelic messenger tells the shepherds that he brings
      them “great joy.”

      The phrase does occur in the LXX (Jonah 4.6 and Is. 39.2), but I do not
      think many would suggest that our authors were borrowing therefrom.

      3) “Do not fear!”

      An angel of the Lord tells Joseph, “ME PHOBETHES” (Mt. 1.20)

      and

      Gabriel tells Mary, “ME PHOBOU!” (Lk. 1.30).

      It seems significant that this phrase is placed in the mouths of the
      angelic characters as they approach, respectively, Joseph (Mt) and Mary
      (Lk).

      Brad McAdon
    • 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.