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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Fallacies at Heart of Q

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    Richard Anderson wrote on Sun Jul 9, 2000 1:51pm: Subject: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at Heart of Q ... Yes, Richard, I think your concerns are justified. All too
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 10, 2000
      Richard Anderson wrote on Sun Jul 9, 2000 1:51pm:
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at Heart of Q

      > In reviewing Beyond the Q Impasse--Luke's Use of Matthew, I note that
      > there is no discussion of the ransom saying (Mk 10:45; Mt 20:28) nor
      > of Matthew's connection of Jesus' convenant blood with the remission
      > of sins (26:28).
      > I think it is clear that not only has GMark (as well as Matt)
      > condemned the animal sacrificial system but also proclaimed a theology
      > of the cross. Luke does not.
      > It this instance it can be said that the theology of Luke is the
      > earliest and most primitive of the synoptics. I have yet to see any
      > scholarly discussion of this point by the advocates of Marcan priority
      > or by those who claims that Luke is based on either Matt, Mark or
      > both.
      > Then again, why do you need to create a theology of the cross if you
      > as a Jew or Jewish follower of Jesus believe on the Day of Atonement,
      > the sins of the entire Jewish nation are forgiven and that the death
      > of the High Priest has a limited atonement value?
      > It seems to me that anyone claiming Luke is based on Matt and/or Mark
      > has to explain the existence of this religious belief long after the
      > destruction of the Temple.
      > The silence of the advocates of Marcan Priority and Lucan dependency
      > is deafening.
      > Richard H. Anderson
      > http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke

      Yes, Richard, I think your concerns are justified. All too often the
      assumption is made that everything in Lk is late, and is based either on
      Mk, or on Mt, or on both. But there's much evidence that contradicts these
      views. Unfortunately, all too often it is neglected or minimised.

      M-E Boismard, in his article THEORIE DES NIVEAUX MULTIPLES, in Dungan,
      D.L. (ed.) _The Interrelations of the Gospels_: The proceedings of a
      Symposium led by Boismard, Farmer, and Neirynck (Leuven: Leuven University
      Press, 1990.) discusses this issue, and gives some additional evidence
      indicating that Lk should not be seen as all late (to say the least).
      Indeed, it seems to contain numerous early features such as you mentioned.
      Luke's famous "Great Omission" is but one of them.

      And in any case, all the mainstream 2ST and Q theorists seem to agree
      that, as compared to Mt, Lk generally tends to preserve the earlier and
      more original version of the Sayings of Jesus. So then why is the "general
      lateness of Lk" still such an item of faith for them? Surely there appears
      to be at least some contradiction in these views.



      Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

      Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy

      "What are among the moral convictions most fondly held by barbarous and
      semi-barbarous people? They are the convictions that authority is the
      soundest basis of belief; that merit attaches to readiness to believe;
      that the doubting disposition is a bad one, and skepticism a sin; that
      when good authority has pronounced what is to be believed, and faith has
      accepted it, reason has no further duty" -- Thomas H. Huxley
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.