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

[Synoptic-L] AMatt's attempt to make his source "suitable"

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    Jim Deardorff wrote: [snip] ... Many times now, in your numerous attempts to defend as true your solution to the Synoptic problem, and to account for the
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 29, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim Deardorff wrote:


      > If AMt's source was not Mark at all, but an extensive (Logia) document that
      > required massive amounts of editing to make sanctionable or suitable, this
      > would explain most of Matthew's doublets. That is, in substituting for
      > unacceptable material in his source, AMt would at times repeat himself; at
      > other times he would retain the passage from his source with only minor
      > editing and then later edit it further into a more suitable passage. Only if
      > you dismiss the external evidence concerning the Logia are you forced to
      > look for other explanations for the doublets.

      Many times now, in your numerous attempts to defend as true your "solution" to
      the Synoptic problem, and to account for the particular scenario of editorial
      changes which you see as having occurred in the history of the Synoptic
      tradition, you have made reference, as you have above, to the "fact"
      (supposedly testified to by external evidence, especially Papias) that our
      canonical Gospels are grounded not only in an originally lengthy, Semitic
      document which contained the actual teaching of the Historical Jesus, but one
      which later evangelists found so "heretical" that, in the interest of making it
      "sanctionable" to the rest of those who were at the time of their writing
      **already** followers of Jesus, they (especially AMatt). had to make substantial
      chances to this document.

      Assuming that I've stated your claim correctly, I must say that the whole thing
      baffles me. To say that AMatt found the document heretical or in need of change
      before it would be suitable to other Christians implies that the teaching of the
      historical Jesus, of whom AMatt was presumably a follower, was using some
      criteria other than the teaching of the Historical Jesus to determine what Jesus
      actually taught.

      Or to put this another way, since it is presumably the teaching of the
      historical Jesus as embodied in this original, lengthy Semitic source (your
      Logia?) that is the norm by which all other representations of his thought and
      teaching is to be judged orthodox or heretical, "suitable" or unsuitable, then
      on your "solution" to the Synoptic Problem, it is AMatt (or any other evangelist
      who bowdlerized the teaching of the HJ) and the Gospel he (they) produced who is
      (are) heretical.

      So let me ask two plain and simple question question in the hope of a plain and
      simple answer: What is the source of the criteria by which AMatt (or any of our
      canonical evangelists) came to see that the source of the teaching of his
      putative master needed to be edited massively before it would be sanctionable or
      suitable? And since "to be made sanctionable or suitable" assumes a "for whom",
      that is to say, since, on your claim, there were Christians who AMatt recognized
      as being no longer able or willing to accept as suitable the original teaching
      of their master, then **from where** did they get *their* (on your grounds,
      historically quite incorrect, and therefore heretical) vision of what
      Christianity was all about? It hardly seems correct to call what ever this
      source was "Christianity" since it disagrees with what -- on your claim for
      Gospel origins -- Jesus actually taught.


      Jeffrey B. Gibson
      7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.