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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: SBL 1999 (Monday)

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 11/26/1999 6:20:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, scmiller@www.plantnet.com writes:
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 28, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 11/26/1999 6:20:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      scmiller@... writes:

      << So, in addition to 'blowing' Meier's argument "out of the
      water," you would also strengthen Freyne's argument. My personal objection
      to Meier's seventh point is that to my knowledge most first century
      Pharisees had two legs. It is obviously a much more subtle point than
      yours. <g> >>

      But valid nonetheless. And that Pharisees had legs is of course as much as
      suggested by Matt 15:1 (par.). Might it be that the Jerusalem origin of the
      Pharisees in Galilee is explicitly mentioned only here in Matt because of the
      allusion in context to the "elders" (15:2), a known leadership group resident
      in Jerusalem (though the term cannot, in context, be limited here to living
      members of that distinguished body)? Or should we rather assume that
      elsewhere in the Gospels' portrayal of Jesus' Galilean ministry, the presence
      of Pharisees is anachronistic? Or, finally, should we take their presence
      elsewhere as "historical" evidence for a native presence of Pharisees in
      Galilee?

      Leonard Maluf
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.