Re: [Synoptic-L] Scrolls of Paul's letters or synoptic gospels?
> From: Brian E. Wilson <brian@...>[Yuri:]
> To: Synoptic-L@...
> Subject: [Synoptic-L] Scrolls of Paul's letters or synoptic gospels?
> Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 3:46 PM
> >Your dates do not seem credible. It is hardly likely that the theologyBrian,
> >of early Christianity was already fully formed by 39. Sorry, but I have
> >problems consdering this as serious historical scholarship.
> The date c.AD 36/37 for the beginning of the mission to the Greek-
> speaking Gentiles at Antioch in Syria is not my estimate only, but that
> of Erhardt, Luedemann, Stanton and others. Similarly, the date for the
> coming of Paul to help Barnabas at Antioch of c.AD. 39/40 was their
> estimate, not merely mine. You can look at the evidence they adduce as
> well I can. I am surprised you even suggest that these are not the
> result of serious historical scholarship. If your historical scholarship
> is so wonderfully superior to the serious historical scholarship of the
> world-famous scholars to which I refer above, perhaps you would give us
> the benefit of your own findings on this topic?
I'm of course not disputing AD 36/37 for the beginning of the mission to
the Greek-speaking Gentiles at Antioch in Syria. What I'm disputing is that
the theology of early Christianity was already fully formed by AD 36/37.
> On my Greek Notes Hypothesis, a possible historical setting for theSo in this case your theory does not appear to give us much to go on...
> production of the Greek Notes was precisely between the two events, the
> beginning of Greek-speaking Gentile Christianity and the coming of Paul
> to help Baranabas at Antioch. I make absolutely no mention whatsoever of
> the state of "early Christian theology" at this time. Equally, I make
> absolutely no claim whatsoever that the theology of the writers of the
> synoptic gospels was determined by the Greek Notes. According to my
> hypothesis, each synoptist independently ***edited*** the selection of
> material he took from the Greek Notes. Clearly this would not have been
> around AD 38, but at later times when the synoptists actually wrote
> their gospels. Any later theological emphasis of any synoptist was
> supplied by the synoptist as he later independently edited the material
> he selected from the Greek Notes. Each synoptist was a free author.
> If my GNH is what happened, the "theology" apparent in the Greek NotesSo, in other words, you don't know what it had been?
> was not the later theology of the Gospel of Matthew, nor the later
> theology of the Gospel of Mark, nor the later theology of the Gospel of
> Luke. It was the theology of the very earliest Greek-speaking Gentile
> "Christians" at Antioch in Syria in about AD 38, whatever theology that
> may have been.
> And they must have had some theology, and it must haveThese problems are analysed in some detail on my webpage, starting with
> been in some sense "Christian", as I am sure you would agree. So I see
> no historical problem here at all.
> Perhaps, Yuri, you would like to tell us what you think happened at
> Antioch in Syria at the beginning of the Greek-speaking Gentile
> Christian movement, giving your reasons?
"The true role of Paul in Christian history",
In my view, all early Christianity, including those early Hellenist
refugees from Jerusalem, was Jewish, or Ebionite quartodeciman. Paul
received his doctrine from them. Much later he came up with some
innovations, but they were not really so drastic. I doubt they had any
special gospel at that early stage, besides the Jewish Scriptures.
I accept the thesis of Goulder that the earliest gospels were all
liturgically based. Christian liturgy developed gradually over the years,
and eventually it acquired a form of the first gospel.
So early Christian liturgical materials are the closest thing that I see to
your Notebook. But all this happened rather later than you suggest.
How does the theological development of early Christianity hold the key to
the Synoptic problem? It's very simple. I believe the first gospel was
fully Jewish in spirit. The general movement, as reflected in the
canonicals, is from a Jewish-Christian doctrine to the Gentile-Christian
doctrine, and this movement, when properly understood, will clarify the
solution to the Synoptic problem.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
- This discussion of whether New Testament documents were written on scrolls
or codices has gone on for a long time (among a small number of
participants). Most of us have lost track of the significance of the
discussion for understanding the synoptic gospels. It seems to me that
exchanges such as the one below are becoming more frequent in this thread
and add little of substance to our work together.
I'd like to remind you of our purpose. "Synoptic-L is an academic list
devoted to scholarly discussion of the Synoptic Gospels. Its purpose is to
provide a forum for questions relating to the exegesis of Matthew, Mark and
/ or Luke, using and analysing the standard critical tools and methods,
with a special emphasis on the interrelationships among the Synoptics."
While I agree with Mark Goodacre that we often need to "lighten up a bit"
and not take ourselves too seriously, and while I certainly think that a
little banter now and then is a good thing, there comes a point when we
need to recognize, especially in a thread that has gone on this long, that
one should ask, "do my comments here make a serious contribution to the
ongoing discussion for which this list has been created?" Remember that you
are asking hundreds of colleagues to devote some their time to reading what
you have written.
I'd like to ask that colleagues pause a moment before "firing off"
responses such as these, perhaps to raise the kind of questions that I do
Thomas R. W. Longstaff
Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
Colby College, Waterville, ME 04901 USA
Member of the Advisory Committee of Synoptic-L
At 06:21 PM 5/19/00 +0100, Jacob Knee wrote:
>I hypothesize that Philemon was written on a roll. Which fact disconfirms
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-synoptic-l@... [mailto:owner-synoptic-l@...]On
> > Behalf Of Brian E. Wilson
> > Sent: 19 May 2000 11:29
> > To: Synoptic-L@...
> > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Philemon
> > You also state that "the burden of proof is on the one with the
> > extraordinary hypothesis to come up with the clear and convincing
> > evidence". I think this is the most revealing statement you make. There
> > is no burden of proof on anyone. Proof enters nowhere whatsoever into
> > this matter. The idea that Paul wrote Philemon on a codex is a
> > **hypothesis**. If you want to shoot down a hypothesis there is one, and
> > only one way of doing so. That is to point to an observed phenomenon
> > which is a difficulty for the hypothesis. I am still waiting for you to
> > point to such an observed phenomenon.
> > Best wishes,
> > BRIAN WILSON