- ... round, it ... 16:17. ... That s reasonable. And, all else being equal, probably our first guess. But Christianity was also a fairly radical break fromMessage 1 of 12 , Sep 12, 2006View SourceRon wrote:
> As Christianity was born out of Judaism, and not the other way
> seems to me more natural to see Mk 13:31 as a development of Q16:17.
>That's reasonable. And, all else being equal, probably our first
guess. But Christianity was also a fairly radical break from
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 reactionis
> supposed to have been manifested, were all penned in the firstcentury,
> whereas my understanding is that Gnosticism didn't really have muchO.K. proto-Gnostic then. But for that matter, I doubt the author of
> influence until the early second century.
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.
>I think it's quite reasonable,logia, to
> bearing in mind Papias' statement that Matthew assembled the
> attribute the first written form of Lk 16:17 to the apostleMatthew.
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.
- 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 hadMessage 2 of 12 , Sep 13, 2006View SourceTo: Synoptic
In Response To: Dave Gentile
On: Sayings Sources, Real and Otherwise
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.
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
- 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 notMessage 3 of 12 , Oct 11, 2006View SourceHello,
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 earthI would like to know :
> 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
- 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,