Re: Jeff Re: Resurrection appearances (was: Re: [Synoptic-L] Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?)
- Chuck wrote:
"While Markan priority is a separate question from the (in)dependence
of Lk and Mt, Mark is looking awfully good as a common factor between
Which, of course, nobody has ever denied. You don't seem yet to
understand that the above does not equate, not even remotely, with
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]