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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus Genealogies

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    ... Perhaps by some but not by all. The interpretaion of Lk giving Mary s genealogy and Mt that of Joseph can also be founded on the basis that Lk had at hand
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:

      >
      > STEPHEN: Here's why this is a problem for synoptic
      > source criticism. Many
      > arguments for the relative independence of Luke and
      > Matthew bring forth as
      > evidence the conflicting genealogies between Matthew
      > and Luke. Yet, the
      > genealogies are conflicting when they are
      > interpreted under a hermeneutical
      > assumption that they are independent of one another.
      > In other words, the
      > hermeneutics is begging the source critical
      > question.


      Perhaps by some but not by all. The interpretaion of
      Lk giving Mary's genealogy and Mt that of Joseph can
      also be founded on the basis that Lk had at hand
      Mary's genealogy (a real document as his source) and
      Mt had that of Joseph. If this is taken as true, which
      the texts stand as the evidence then how could this be
      proven false?


      > BRUCE: I have to admit to being allergic to the word
      > "hermeneutics" (in my
      > field, it amounts to a privileging of contemporary
      > popular opinion).

      How do you come to this? What is your definition of
      hermeneutics? The term means that every text is
      interpreted. How can this psychological fact be
      escaped? It is not peculiar to modern or contemporary
      readers but any reader at any period of history.

      I agree
      > with what I think is the thrust of this comment
      > otherwise: the differences
      > between the genealogies don't prove mutual
      > ignorance. They are compatible
      > with a hypothesis that Luke came later, and was
      > determined to do better a
      > job which, in his view, Matthew had previously
      > botched.

      What hard evidence is there for this conclusion?

      [snip]


      best regards,
      John N. Lupia, III

      John N. Lupia, III
      Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 USA
      Fax: (732) 349-3910
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
      God Bless America



      ____________________________________________________
      Yahoo! Sports
      Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
      http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ron Price
      ... Chuck, If you mean that they never made major changes to their source texts, then your observation is based on a fallacy. For minor changes are easy to
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Chuck Jones wrote:

        > While this is a rhetorically powerful and attractive thought, Bruce, it
        > ignores a foundational observation about Mt, Mk and Lk that arises when
        > comparing them to each other. They were in the habit of only slightly
        > modifying the wording of their source(s) when incorporating the material in
        > their books.

        Chuck,

        If you mean that they never made major changes to their source texts, then
        your 'observation' is based on a fallacy.

        For minor changes are easy to recognize. But what if two passages have
        rather less in common? How do we know whether one copied from the other
        making major changes or the two are independent? For example is Luke's
        parable about a steward (16:1-13) an adaptation of Matthew's parable of
        slaves (18:23-35)? Is Matthew's temptation story an imaginative development
        of Mark 1:12-13? Is the setting and general content of Sermon on the Plain a
        complete rehash of those of the Sermon on the Mount because Luke didn't like
        the latter's strongly Jewish flavour? We cannot rule out the possibility of
        dependency in these cases. Therefore no one should be confident that the
        synoptic writers only made *slight* modifications to other synoptic texts.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • maluflen@aol.com
        Chuck Jones writes to Bruce Brooks:
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 6, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Chuck Jones writes to Bruce Brooks: 
           
          << While this is a rhetorically powerful and attractive thought, Bruce, it ignores a foundational observation about Mt, Mk and Lk that arises when comparing them to each other. They were in the habit of only slightly modifying the wording of their source(s) when incorporating the material in their books. (This observation holds up regardless of the hypothetical direction of literary dependence.)>>
           
           
          Your final, parenthetic statement is simply not true. Your initial statement is based, I think, on "observations" made on the theory of Markan priority and the Two Source Theory. On the two Gospel Hypothesis, it simply does not stand up at all. Your statement in parentheses, on this hypothesis, would be true of a number of passages, somewhat true of others and not at all true of still others. So the original generalization, as such, would have to be judged fatally simplistic.
           
          Leonard Maluf
          Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
          Weston, MA
           
           
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...>
          To: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>; Synoptic-L <synoptic-l@...>
          Sent: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus Genealogies



          E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:
          To: Synoptic-L
          In Response To: Bruce
          On: Manson on Genealogies
          From: Chuck
          Bruce:
          Once we fully admit (as many at least tokenly admit) that Matthew and Luke
          are authors, with many of the ambitions and jealousies to which authors in
          ancient times where liable, and get rid of the idea that one is a failed
          Xerox of the other, then the Synoptic Problem (among other problems) becomes
          rationally discussable, and perhaps also ultimately solvable.
          Chuck:
          While this is a rhetorically powerful and attractive thought, Bruce, it ignores a foundational observation about Mt, Mk and Lk that arises when comparing them to each other.  They were in the habit of only slightly modifying the wording of their source(s) when incorporating the material in their books.  (This observation holds up regardless of the hypothetical direction of literary dependence.)
          I personally think there is much literary and theological artistry demonstrated in this minimalist approach, but even if I were to conclude they were failed Xeroxes, it is still the approach they actually took.
          Jn, on the other hand, handled synoptic material much more freely.
          Chuck Jones
          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • Chuck Jones
          Leonard, Thanks for the note. See my clarification from a little while ago. My observations may in fact be false or oversimplistic, but they re based on
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 6, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Leonard,
             
            Thanks for the note.  See my clarification from a little while ago.
             
            My observations may in fact be false or oversimplistic, but they're based on reading across the columns of a standard synposis, assuming no particular "directional" relationship between the three columns.
             
            Chuck

            Leonard wrote:
            Chuck Jones writes to Bruce Brooks: 
             
            << While this is a rhetorically powerful and attractive thought, Bruce, it ignores a foundational observation about Mt, Mk and Lk that arises when comparing them to each other. They were in the habit of only slightly modifying the wording of their source(s) when incorporating the material in their books. (This observation holds up regardless of the hypothetical direction of literary dependence.)>>
             
             
            Your final, parenthetic statement is simply not true. Your initial statement is based, I think, on "observations" made on the theory of Markan priority and the Two Source Theory. On the two Gospel Hypothesis, it simply does not stand up at all. Your statement in parentheses, on this hypothesis, would be true of a number of passages, somewhat true of others and not at all true of still others. So the original generalization, as such, would have to be judged fatally simplistic.
             
            Leonard Maluf
            Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
            Weston, MA


            Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.