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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Jesus Genealogies

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Jul 6 2:29 AM
    • 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 2 of 8 , Jul 6 7:03 AM
      • 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 3 of 8 , Jul 6 7:44 AM
        • 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.