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

RE: Brooks RE: [Synoptic-L] RE: The Synoptic Problem

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Thanks to Jeffrey for giving the full entries from Danker et al. He doesn t say, and I don t see, what of consequence (other than general culture)
    Message 1 of 31 , Apr 20, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      Thanks to Jeffrey for giving the full entries from Danker et al. He doesn't
      say, and I don't see, what of consequence (other than general culture) they
      add to the NT-relevant extracts I earlier cited. If in some passage, we need
      a sense that NT does not supply, but other Greek literature does (and Danker
      already seems to be helpful in this area), then fine. But I don't see how a
      usage in, say, Herodotus can replace the plain meaning of a usage in Paul
      (for the plain meaning, at least to start with, I have relied on Danker). In
      other words, if the NT line is clear as it stands, then I think we are
      justified in moving on. History is in its nature collaborative, and if B
      finds an omission in the work of A that can be cured by something in Liddell
      and Scott, then B is presumably always welcome to mention it. Mentioning
      such things would seem to be one of the excuses for a list exchange like the
      present one.
      What I would like to know, Jeffrey, is how did you reproduce the BDGA etc
      entries in E-mail? Is there a liftable-off text somewhere? If so, I would
      much admire to have the reference, or the URL.
      E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Chuck Jones
      Bruce, You are making no distinction between Jesus and Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn Thomas, etc.  I m not talking about what *they* taught.  I m talking about the material
      Message 31 of 31 , Apr 21, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce,


        You are making no distinction between Jesus and Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn Thomas, etc.  I'm not talking about what *they* taught.  I'm talking about the material they retained in their gospels even though in contradicted their message that Jesus kept the law.


        Chuck


        Rev. Chuck Jones
        Atlanta, Georgia


        --- On Wed, 4/20/11, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:

        CHUCK: Jesus consistently, intentionally, and programmatically broke the

        Jewish law.

        BRUCE: No. Jesus kept the Law, and he consistently urged his followers to

        keep the Law; he just defined the Law more narrowly than the Pharisees. This

        narrower definition was what was radical, and as it turned out, unexpectedly

        productive, in Jesus's teachings.

        It helps to read Mark at points like this. Mark shows Jesus breaking rules

        (like Sabbath observance, or handwashing, or fasting) that the Pharisees

        and/or the Johnites thought important. But Mark equally shows Jesus

        insisting on the laws against murder, and the commandment to respect

        parents; he had (with his Galilean contemporary Shammai, as I understand it)

        a stricter view of divorce than Moses. He justified this stance by

        interpreting Moses as allowing an expedient laxity, and went straight to God

        in Genesis for what he thought was the correct rule: Marriage is

        indissoluble.

        E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.