Re: [Synoptic-L] Hultgren's synoptic source theory (was: Healings and order arguments)
- At 02:11 PM 11/7/2011, Graham E Budd wrote:
>fact argues that one aspect of this order is that there was, as John
>has it, an early ministry in Galilee that has essentially been
>suppressed by the synoptics, possibly because Jesus was in conflict or
>at least in parallel with the ministry of John, which did not fit
>their apologetic purposes (traces of it are seen, however, in the
>rearrangements of the early part of the synoptic ministry and in the
>peculiar way in which the question from John (now supposedly in
>prison) is treated....
Thank you for your interesting posts.
I am beginning to get the idea that the Gospels represent two
traditions (no news in that!), and that the Synoptics represent a
strand based in Jerusalem, influenced by James, and that John
represents a more Galilean tradition.
For example, If the synoptics derived from a Jerusalem tradition, of
course they would suppress a Galilean tradition ('Can anything good
come out of Galilee?'), whereas John favors Galilee in a number of
ways (e.g., John 21). But I imagine someone else has plowed this field.
BTW, Matthew mentions Galilee 16 times, as does John (Mark: 12x; Luke: 14x).
I'm sorry, but I don't have any more time to work on this now.
Northern Arizona University
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Jeff Peterson wrote:
> ..... while Paul doesn't mention signsJeff,
> and wonders performed by Jesus, he does regard signs and wonders as marking
> apostles of the risen Christ (Rom 15:1819; 2 Cor 12:12).
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 fromBut this is nothing more than a supposition, and its perceived likelihood
> Cephas, James, et al. of signs and wonders performed by Christ .....
depends on whether or not we consider (on other grounds) that Jesus was a
So I still maintain that our only independent witness to Jesus as a miracle
worker is the gospel of Mark.