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

Re: [XTalk] Matthew's Infancy Narrative

Expand Messages
  • Tony Buglass
    Hi, Zeba. We had a lot of fun with this in the run up to the Millennium. We reckoned it was a proof that God has a sense of humour, that he was letting us
    Message 1 of 58 , May 17 7:59 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Zeba.

      We had a lot of fun with this in the run up to the Millennium. We reckoned
      it was a proof that God has a sense of humour, that he was letting us make
      such a fuss about the wrong date.

      The guy responsible for the calendar was Dionysius Exiguus, who lived in
      Rome in the 6th C. He suggested dating the Christian era from the date of
      the incarnation, and his calendar started with New Year's Day on March 25th,
      AD 1, being the supposed date of the Annunciation. The Gregorian Calendar
      moved New year to January 1st. Unfortunately, Dionysius got his sums wrong,
      and was 6 years out. So I hope everyone enjoyed 1994, 'cos that was the
      real Millennium. Pity New years Day wasn't April 1st... As to the precise
      dating according to Dionysius, he reckoned Year 1 was 753 A U C (from the
      foundation of the city) in the Diocletian calendar. So if anyone is good at
      Roman chronology, they should be able to work out how wrong Little Dionysius
      was.

      As to the problems with Matt's dating, I suspect he didn't really take the
      time to reconcile his sources. Not sure how important it was to him.

      Cheers,
      Rev Tony Buglass
      Superintendent Minister
      Upper Calder Methodist Circuit
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Though this Luke seems to have had a very impressive library (Mark, Q, John I, Mary, Thomas, etc.), I am struck that it nonetheless lacked the most
      Message 58 of 58 , May 30 7:19 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        At 06:00 PM 5/29/2006 -0400, Gordon Raynal wrote:
        >On May 29, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Ken Olson wrote:
        >> My own take would be that Luke had known Mark, which had
        >> been THE gospel to him, for some time when Matthew came into his
        >> hands.
        >
        > I doubt this because from my perspective one can make far more sense
        >of the construction of the Luke-Acts work directly in relationship to
        >copying from Mark and Q and also in relationship to John (1-20), and
        >probably G. Mary, an edition of G. Thomas, and some of the other
        >fragmentary gospels and by then, decades old preachings and teachings
        >on key texts in TANAK as related to Jesus. Despite such as Mark G.'s
        >position that it's a better case that Luke got a lot of his material
        >from Matthew, as you know I think the whole issue of the use of the
        >Sayings materials makes much more sense in terms of understanding their
        >presence in Q and then the utilization and redaction independently by
        >Matthew and Luke.

        Though this "Luke" seems to have had a very impressive library (Mark,
        Q, John I, Mary, Thomas, etc.), I am struck that it nonetheless lacked
        the most popular gospel of the second century even after it had been
        circulating for 20-30 years.

        The existence of Q in the form that is most commonly accepted is
        based on the relative independence of Matthew and Luke. This premise
        has ramifications on their relative dating, because the further apart
        in time the compositions of Matthew and Luke become, the less
        reasonable it becomes to postulate their mutual ignorance of each
        other.

        As in any reduction to absurity, this exercise does not tell us
        which assumption is off. It could be that Q never existed, or
        that Q was smaller (a la Ron Price), or that Luke was written
        earlier, or that Matthew was written later, etc. Nevertheless,
        it is a good idea to step back from the jigsaw puzzle and see if
        the individual pieces actually do fit together to form a coherent
        picture.

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
        Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.