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

[Synoptic-L] Re: A synoptic idea

Expand Messages
  • Dave Gentile
    ... round, it ... 16:17. ... That s reasonable. And, all else being equal, probably our first guess. But Christianity was also a fairly radical break from
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 12, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron wrote:

      >
      > As Christianity was born out of Judaism, and not the other way
      round, it
      > seems to me more natural to see Mk 13:31 as a development of Q
      16:17.
      >

      That's reasonable. And, all else being equal, probably our first
      guess. But Christianity was also a fairly radical break from
      tradition.
      Maybe we shouldn't expect much in the way of *conservative* Jewish
      attitudes from the first followers. Paul didn't like them much in
      his early conservative stage.


      > But the synoptic gospels, within which this conservative reaction
      is
      > supposed to have been manifested, were all penned in the first
      century,
      > whereas my understanding is that Gnosticism didn't really have much
      > influence until the early second century.

      O.K. proto-Gnostic then. But for that matter, I doubt the author of
      Matthew would have though much of the gospel of John (or the ideas
      that led to it) either. Identifying Jesus as God may have been a
      step to far for him. In any case, we agree the author of Matthew
      represents a conservative turn from Mark, at least when it comes to
      his attitude towards Hebrew scripture.

      So we have this time line -

      1) Early Jewish followers (probably rather radical)
      2) Mark – with a liberal take on Hebrew scripture
      3) Mathew, with a conservative view of Hebrew scripture.

      So, if we have another document with a conservative attitude, where
      does it fit in that time line? Well, anywhere really.

      <snip>

      >I think it's quite reasonable,
      > bearing in mind Papias' statement that Matthew assembled the
      logia, to
      > attribute the first written form of Lk 16:17 to the apostle
      Matthew.

      Reasonable, yes. But a successfully forged early saying source, and
      a real early saying source will probably have much in common,
      including Papias' testimony about them, so that can't be used to
      separate the ideas.

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, IL
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic In Response To: Dave Gentile On: Sayings Sources, Real and Otherwise From: Bruce Among much else of interest in his latest contribution, Dave had
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 13, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic
        In Response To: Dave Gentile
        On: Sayings Sources, Real and Otherwise
        From: Bruce

        Among much else of interest in his latest contribution, Dave had remarked,
        "But a successfully forged early saying source and a real early saying
        source will probably have much in common, including Papias' testimony about
        them, so that can't be used to separate the ideas."

        I merely want to say that I think this is a very important principle. Too
        many things could correspond to certain bits of medium early external
        testimony for complete certainty, and in any case, our ability to detect
        forgeries at this distance is necessarily somewhat impaired. Any hypothesis
        compatible with the words of Papias (wherever the boundary between them and
        Eusebius's comments may lie, and whatever exactly they mean, and ignoring
        the Johannine bias of Papias, and assuming that Papias in this remark has a
        probity which is conspicuously missing from what we know of his own
        writings) is probably the better for it, other things being equal. But it is
        still worthwhile to be reminded that the category of hypotheses which could
        be judged compatible with the words of Papias is a somewhat wide one.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst

        [The name "Papias" reminds me that in the early China field, we have a
        conspicuous case of a major court historian, a man of learning or anyway of
        wide acquaintance in the world of texts, who showed incredible naivete in
        evaluating recent forgeries as genuine productions of antiquity, and whose
        own editing of earlier texts for inclusion in his book ranged from
        amateurish to downright clumsy. He had an accepting mind and a trembling
        hand].
      • Emmanuel Fritsch
        Hello, Arguing about technical details in Luke on a french forum, we deeply disagree about keramon in Luke 5:19. It has been said that tiles were not
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 11, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello,

          Arguing about technical details in Luke on a french forum, we deeply
          disagree about "keramon" in Luke 5:19. It has been said that "tiles"
          were not present in Syria at the beginning of Ist century, so that it
          constitutes an error of Luke.

          Since I was not convinced, I said it, and I have been sharply accused
          for being a defender of inerrancy.
          Hence I would like to look around the question.

          Even if "tiles" for "keramon" is the mainstream translation, in french,
          english, german, we have other translation for this "keramon". Segond
          translate "par une ouverture du toit".

          Bailly, the standard greek-french dictionnary, proposes "clay".
          Greek online bible (http://www.greekbible.com) proposes :
          > 1) clay, potter's earth
          > 2) anything made of clay, earthen ware
          > 3) a roofing tile
          > 3a) the roof itself
          > 3b) the phrase "through the roof", means through the door in the
          > roof to which a ladder or stairway led up from the street
          > (according to the Rabbis distinguish two ways of entering
          > a house, "the way through the door" and "the way through
          > the roof". For Synonyms see entry 5858

          I would like to know :
          - what is the source for this definition ? (and for the whole lexicon of
          greek online bible)
          - are there any other stuff about the translation of "keramon" I should
          have looked at ?
          - are there any other stuff about "keramon" in Luke ?

          Thanks in advance,

          a+
          manu
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.