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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Multiple independent witnesses to the miracles of Jesus? (was: The Davidic Entry into Jerusalem)

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    Ron, Your logic doesn t work here.  If AMt and ALk created the M and L material, M and L are still independent witnesses; they are just not *sources* for AMt
    Message 1 of 50 , Nov 7, 2011
      Ron,

      Your logic doesn't work here.  If AMt and ALk created the M and L material, M and L are still independent witnesses; they are just not *sources* for AMt and ALk.  Likewise 99% of the gospel of John is an independent witness.

      Chuck

      Rev. Chuck Jones
      Atlanta, Georgia
      ___________________

      Ron wrote:


      Let's consider the 'sources' you [Greg] mentioned. There is no evidence that M and
      L ever constituted sources. For instance, M may simply represent pericopes
      created by Matthew and not copied by Luke. John was probably dependent on
      Mark (Barrett, Schnelle, et al.). That Q ever existed is highly debatable,
      and few scholars consider it certain. This leaves us with only one certain
      independent witness, namely the gospel of Mark.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ronald Price
      ... Jeff, Indeed, Paul himself apparently claimed to have performed signs and wonders, though it should be noted in regard to the latter reference above, which
      Message 50 of 50 , Nov 10, 2011
        Jeff Peterson wrote:

        > ..... while Paul doesn't mention signs
        > and wonders performed by Jesus, he does regard signs and wonders as marking
        > apostles of the risen Christ (Rom 15:18–19; 2 Cor 12:12).

        Jeff,

        Indeed, Paul himself apparently claimed to have performed signs and wonders,
        though it should be noted in regard to the latter reference above, which is
        Paul's strongest statement on the subject, that the context is his desperate
        desire to present himself as a true apostle. Also he was somewhat agitated
        (2 Cor 12:11).

        But unfortunately none of the four claims to deeds of power (your two plus 1
        Thess 1:5 and 1 Cor 2:4) are accompanied by details. Consequently we can't
        be sure what Paul meant, and there is at least the possibility that he was
        referring to the drama of mass conversions which this persuasive missionary
        no doubt initiated.

        > It wouldn't be a great leap to suppose that Paul had heard reports from
        > Cephas, James, et al. of signs and wonders performed by Christ .....

        But this is nothing more than a supposition, and its perceived likelihood
        depends on whether or not we consider (on other grounds) that Jesus was a
        miracle worker.

        So I still maintain that our only independent witness to Jesus as a miracle
        worker is the gospel of Mark.

        Ron Price,

        Derbyshire, UK

        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.