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

Re: [XTalk] Consistent dates? (was: Storytelling)

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    Hi again, On Aug 11, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Ron Price wrote: Hi again, ... Thanks. ... I know folks love to play this as a probability game and that s all we can
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 11, 2008
      Hi again,
      On Aug 11, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Ron Price wrote:

      Hi again,

      > Gordon Raynal wrote:
      >> ..... (and let us not forget the mastery of Q, as well)
      >> ..... Just so you'll know my preferred dates:
      >> Mark ca 80
      >> Matthew ca 90-95
      >> John (1-20) ca 100
      >> Luke ca 120
      >> addition of John 21 after Luke
      > Gordon,
      > Full marks for putting your cards on the table.

      > But it seems to me that you fail on consistency.
      > For acceptance of Q implies Luke didn't know Matthew. How could you
      > possibly
      > imagine that the scholarly Luke, who had "followed all things
      > closely for
      > some time past", would have failed to acquire a copy of (and then
      > make use
      > of) Matthew if it had been in circulation for over 25 years? Your NT
      > scenario appears to be utterly inconsistent.

      I know folks love to play this as "a probability game" and that's all
      we can do since we don't have access to Luke's desk:)! (not to
      mention any whole gospel texts or letters until long after any of
      these folks times!) Luke notes "many" in terms of those who were up
      to this literary production. Who were those "many?" That's an
      interesting question. How many of those "many" did Luke actually
      have to read and work from? How many had he just heard mentioned or
      heard brief quotes from verbally? There is absolutely nothing
      logically inconsistent with the statement: "Luke **may have** heard
      of Matthew and not had access to a text of G. Matthew for him to work
      from." And logically speaking... if he had Mark and Q to work from,
      he **may have heard** that Matthew had utilized Q and so that
      knowledge alone could have been motivation to follow that as part of
      his working pattern. There is nothing inconsistent about the views
      of all those who have worked on Q. And moving Luke from the 90's to
      ca. 120 does not change the "consistency" argument in any way. If
      they all had internet access, I might be a bit more persuaded. But
      exactly how many mss. of Matthew were there in either 90 or 120? How
      many had access to them?

      And just one other brief note. Over the years of figuring out "how to
      put the cards on the table," I have worked through this with various
      dating schemes, various inter-textual relationship views and various
      views of what really count as texts. I have come to the same
      conclusion based on all the text/ text relationship and dating
      schemes I have seen. Even if there isn't a Q at all, I'll stick with
      what I have come up with. The only thing that will lead me to have
      to rework this is more actual historical data and a fully agreed upon
      earlier text that seriously challenges the basics of my proposal. In
      the meantime... put Paul in the 50's, Mark in the 60's and Matthew
      and Luke in the 80's/ 90's (with Luke having copied Matthew) and no Q
      and no early Thomas, and I still won't change this proposal because
      one of the things I did was work through the proposal in that text/
      dating/ text relationship paradigm, as well.

      Gordon Raynal
      Inman, SC
      > Ron Price
      > Derbyshire, UK
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.