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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Alex Damm's paper at the SBL

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 11/27/2003 5:17:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... You realize, don t you, that this is saying a lot. There aren t a lot of those out there. I
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 27, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 11/27/2003 5:17:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, scarlson@... writes:


      >Has anyone out there read Damm's new article in *Novum Testamentum* yet?
      > I haven't, but now I'm very curious.

      That article is directed to exploring Markan priority.  It makes a couple
      of good arguments in favor of Markan priority,


      You realize, don't you, that this is saying a lot. There aren't a lot of those out there. I am curious to read this article now too.

      Leonard Maluf
      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      Weston, MA
    • John C. Poirier
      ... Right. I didn t mean to imply that what I excerpted from Damm s paper was his central argument. It was merely one of several arguments. John C. Poirier
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 27, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        "Stephen C. Carlson" wrote:

        > I understood Damm to have made a somewhat different argument, in
        > that I thought Damm argued that if Luke used Matthew, then there
        > are ready-made passages in the Beelzebul controversy denouncing
        > the Pharisees that Luke should have used, following ancient ideas
        > of rhetoric, but either omitted or moved elsewhere.

        Right. I didn't mean to imply that what I excerpted from Damm's paper was his
        central argument. It was merely one of several arguments.


        John C. Poirier
        Middletown, Ohio



        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Ron Price
        ... Stephen, This is true. For in the blinkered world of the 2ST, the sayings source is virtually identified with the double tradition. Enter the 3ST. It s a
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 27, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Stephen Carlson wrote:

          > Q does not exist (now). We don't know what parts
          > of Q Luke would have omitted, because--had Luke omitted those parts--
          > we would not be able to assign them to Q.

          Stephen,

          This is true. For in the blinkered world of the 2ST, the sayings source is
          virtually identified with the double tradition.

          Enter the 3ST. It's a new world with a wider vision. Here it's possible to
          deduce exactly what each synoptic writer omitted from the sayings source,
          and in most cases why it was omitted.

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm



          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.