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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Flusser on the Synoptics

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    Thanks for posting the following, Dennis. ... And this is my own view as well. ... I m a little sceptical here. Rather, I would say that the Greek source of Lk
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 31, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for posting the following, Dennis.

      ----------
      > From: Dennis Sullivan <densull@...>
      > To: Maluflen@...
      > Cc: Synoptic-L@...
      > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Flusser on the Synoptics
      > Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 9:12 AM

      > From "Jesus", by David Flusser (edited by Steven Notley), Magnes
      > Press, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1997, pp. 21-22. [ISBN
      > 965-223-978-X] (An earlier version of this work was published in
      > German in 1968.)
      >
      > "...My research has led me to the conclusion that the Synoptic Gospels
      > are based upon one or more non-extant early documents composed by
      > Jesus' early disciples and the early church in Jerusalem. These texts
      > were originally written in Hebrew. Subsequently they were translated
      > into Greek and passed through various stages of redaction. It is the
      > Greek translation of these early Hebrew sources that were employed by
      > our three evangelists.
      >
      > ...My experience, however, chiefly based on the research of the late
      > R.L. Lindsey, has shown me that Luke preserves, in comparison to Mark
      > (and Matthew when depending on Mark), the original tradition.

      And this is my own view as well.

      > A critical re-evaluation of the literary evidence thus indicates that
      > Luke wrote before Mark.

      I'm a little sceptical here. Rather, I would say that the Greek source of
      Lk (which may be described as the proto-Lk) precedes Mk. It seems to me
      that, besides much early material, the canonical Lk also contains certain
      amounts of late material, that was added to proto-Lk later.

      > Mark then reworked the gospel material and unfavorably influenced
      > Matthew, who followed Mark's version closely. Finally, it is important
      > to add that Matthew, when independent of Mark, frequently preserves
      > the earlier sources of the life of Jesus that lie behind Luke's
      > Gospel. Hence, Luke and Matthew together provide the most authentic
      > portrayal of Jesus' life and teachings."

      This is probable.

      On close examination, I really don't find so much unique early material in
      Mk. What seems early about Mk is primarily its form, i.e. it is a short
      gospel that lacks an infancy preamble, a genealogy, and
      post-resurrection appearances. But while the form of Mk does seem early
      and primitive, much of its content appears to be quite late, and betrays
      considerable later editorial work, a lot of it marked by a clear
      Gentile-oriented and anti-Judaic flavour.

      I can easily see how 2ST adherents got so confused about Mk being "all
      early and primitive". Their problem seems to be that they are simply
      confusing the (primitive) form of Mk with its (rather late) content.

      Regards,

      Yuri.

      Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

      "It is so much easier to assume than to prove; it is so much less painful
      to believe than to doubt; there is such a charm in the repose of
      prejudice, when no discordant voice jars upon the harmony of belief; there
      is such a thrilling pang when cherished dreams are scattered, and old
      creeds abandoned, that it is not surprising that men close their eyes to
      the unwelcome light" -- W.E.H. Lecky (A History of Rationalism)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.