4161Re: [John_Lit] Re: Oral Tradition
- Feb 6, 2004In a message dated 2/6/2004 9:15:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, Peter.Hofrichter@... writes:
> Dear Colleague Leonard MalufBecause you say so? My response is: "prove it". And please do not bother to repeat the standard arguments found in New Testament introductions. All five of them have been frequently and decisively exposed as fallacious, or at the very least inconclusive. On the other hand, if you have some new argument in its support (other than that from authority) I, for one, would be most interested in hearing it. What impresses me is that the theory of Markan priority leaves unexplained more detailed phenomena in the Synoptic Gospels than it explains. Try, if you like, to persuade me otherwise, but perhaps you should do so on another list, such as Synoptic-L. Thus far you have only confirmed my view that old Europe is more reliable on the question of preemptive warfare than it is on the question of the order of the Synoptic Gospels.
> I know already your two Gospels Theorie. Unfortunately I cannot share it. Mark is the first among the synoptics.>
<< The development of the "Logos" goes differently from what should be expected according to an evolution concept. But concerning the christology this means a augmentation or lifting up....>
Sorry. The theory doesn't become any less counter-intuitive with repetition. I need to know something of the reason why you think Mark's (bzw. Matthew's) use of logos to refer to the teaching of Jesus was a fighting doctrine, attempting to undermine an already established identification of Jesus himself with the logos. I just see no evidence of this whatsoever.
Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>