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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Christmas

Expand Messages
  • Carl W. Conrad
    ... My apologies to the list for a rather feeble effort to inject a bit of levity into the discussion. Perhaps others were as befuddled about what I meant as
    Message 1 of 38 , Dec 10, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      At 8:42 AM -0600 12/10/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
      >At 8:49 AM -0500 12/10/99, Thomas R. W. Longstaff wrote:
      >>Indeed. It might also be that for such details as "born of a woman" one
      >>need not look for close literary dependence.
      >
      >Unless, of course, one remembers McDuff and the unjustified confidence of
      >Macbeth that he had nothing to fear from a man "not of woman born."

      My apologies to the list for a rather feeble effort to inject a bit of
      levity into the discussion. Perhaps others were as befuddled about what I
      meant as was Jeffrey Gibson who wrote me off-list about it. Tom Longstaff
      recognized and rightly noted that the operative word in my previous message
      was "NOT" in "not of woman born." If you are by any chance stumped and care
      enough, you may consult the last scene in Shakespeare's Macbeth, wherein, I
      trow, you'll find no nativity scene. ;-)


      Carl W. Conrad
      Department of Classics/Washington University
      One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
      Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
      cwconrad@...
    • Steven Craig Miller
      To: Mark Preece,
      Message 38 of 38 , Dec 16, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Mark Preece,

        << The author seems to be going to some lengths to establish that this all
        happens in a very compressed period of time -- in fact, on a single day. In
        light of this, is it really plausible to think "DE" ("then he led them
        out...") means anything other than "very soon thereafter"? Certainly not
        "many days later". >>

        The issue as I see it is whether one is going to accuse Luke here of
        inconsistency (and I have no problem with doing that) or impression. My
        suggestion is not that DE means "many days later," only that it means
        "but/and/then" and that Luke could have used it merely to imply that this
        event recorded in Lk 24:50 also took place. It seems to me that to be fair
        the charge of inconsistency demands a higher threshold than the accusation
        of impression (or ambiguity). Then, after you accuse Luke of inconsistency,
        you seem to want to suggest that Luke didn't care for historical details.
        Frankly, an ambiguous example as this simply can't prove such a conclusion.
        Your example would carry more weight if Luke had written, "and on this day"
        (or some such). But he didn't, all Luke wrote was "and" (DE).
        Unfortunately, the Greek particle DE doesn't tell us when.

        Also, I find it kind of ironic that one can suggest that Luke might not be
        concerned with historical details in light of such passages as Lk 1:1-4;
        2:1-2; and 3:23-38. Now here is a guy (and I assume that the author of
        Luke's gospel was male) who attempts to record Jesus' genealogy from his
        papa and grand-papa, all the way back, generation by generation, to Adam
        and ultimately to God! He obviously cares for such details, or he wouldn't
        have put them into his gospel.

        -Steven Craig Miller
        Alton, Illinois (USA)
        scmiller@...
        Disclaimer: "I'm just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree),
        what do I know?"
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.