Continuing the discussion of "a hybrid hypothesis":

MARK GOODACRE: Advocates of the Morgenthaler-Gundry position would need to
find strong, fresh reasons for arguing for the existence of a Q document
alongside Luke's use of Matthew.

LEONARD: I agree with Mark here, and am glad that he is working on this.

But in response to the same statement of Mark, YURI wrote:

<< Many good reasons are available. I like the argument from form. Sayings
  collections are a well attested literary form in classical antiquity. And
  this is where GTh comes in also. I think this would qualify as both
  "strong" and "fresh reason" for Q/NMM since GTh was unavailable at the
  time when the original Q hypothesis was formulated.>>

LEONARD: To which, the obvious response is: a posse ad esse non valet illatio.
It never ceases to amaze me that the existence of a second century Gnostic
document of a "sayings" type, the Gospel of Thomas, can be thought by anyone
to constitute PROOF for the existence of Q in the first century. And the fact
that Yuri, or anyone else for that matter, <likes> the argument from form
doesn't, unfortunately, add anything at all to its validity from a logical
point of view.

Leonard Maluf

Mark seems to be consistent in introducing the unexpected.  In his parallels
to the other synoptics, he seems to use a different Greek vocabulary that
doesn't always become obvious in English translations.  He also seems to
have some favorite words and phrases that he uses a number of times.

In the introduction to his "Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark"
(Dugith, Jerusalem, 1973, p.57 & following), Robert L. Lindsey calls these
words and expressions "Markan Stereotypes", and lists a few of them.  The
most obvious, of course, is KAI EUQUS, but there are some others.  (I plan
to work on these later.)

An expression that Lindsey calls "one of the most fascinating of Mark's
stereotypes" is the noun form TO EUAGGELION.  Mark uses it 8xx, Matthew 4xx,
and Luke not at all in his Gospel.  Matthew sometimes uses it in the same
context as Mark, but 3 times expands it to TO EUAGGELION THS BASILEIAS, "the
Gospel of the Kingdom".  The verb form, EUAGGELIZOMAI, appears in the LXX,
and occurs a number of times throughout the N.T. as a verb or participle.
The noun is obviously developed from this verb.

Questions arise:  How did Mark come to use this term?  Did he get it from
Matthew?  Not from Luke, obviously, since it isn't used in that Gospel.  Did
he coin it from the verb used in the LXX?  And since Luke used it in Acts,
why didn't he use it in his Gospel--if he got it from Mark?

Lindsey suggests that Mark picked up this phrase from Acts, where it appears
as a noun two times.  In Acts 15:7 it appears in a speech by Peter, and in
20:24 it appears in Paul's instructions to the elders at Ephesus. Lindsey
further suggests that it's a Pauline coinage that was apparently picked up
by the Acts author.

The phrase does appear in Paul's writings, e.g., 11xx in Romans, 8xx in 1
Corinthians, and 7xx in 2 Corinthians.  The cases vary--mostly accusative,
genitive, and dative, but sometimes as a participle.

Lindsey suggests that there are about one hundred Greek words and phrases
that seem to be borrowed by Mark from the book of Acts.  I'm preparing a
chart of the 40-or-so words he lists, and hope to go on to find the others
he mentions.  The chart is under construction in MSWord6.0 format.  I have
about forty different words listed currently, and a few more to add. (I'm
trying to put the chart into HTML format as well, so that it might be posted
on a website. I'm using the GNT font, which, incidentally, still has the psi
and theta switched.  It works in Internet Explorer, but I had to remove the
breathings and the accents from the Graecall font I had used in Word.)

In seven instances, (out of 40 words and phrases) Matthew parallels Mark in
his usage. Luke comes close to a parallel in two cases, Mark does so in one
case. By this I mean that they use the same word in close proximity to
Mark's usage.  In other cases, parallels are only synonymic, and are not
true word-for-word parallels in Greek.

Lindsey also finds a number of Markan words that appear in non-parallel
portions of Luke.  I suppose that research will require another chart...

I hope this is of interest to some.

Later, then.

Best Wishes,

Dennis Sullivan  Dayton Ohio  Friend of the Jerusalem School
www.jerusalemperspective.com

Dennis Sullivan wrote (SNIP)
>
>An expression that Lindsey calls "one of the most fascinating of Mark's
>stereotypes" is the noun form TO EUAGGELION.  Mark uses it 8xx, Matthew 4xx,
>and Luke not at all in his Gospel.  Matthew sometimes uses it in the same
>context as Mark, but 3 times expands it to TO EUAGGELION THS BASILEIAS, "the
>Gospel of the Kingdom".  The verb form, EUAGGELIZOMAI, appears in the LXX,
>and occurs a number of times throughout the N.T. as a verb or participle.
>The noun is obviously developed from this verb.
>
>Questions arise:  How did Mark come to use this term?  Did he get it from
>Matthew?  Not from Luke, obviously, since it isn't used in that Gospel.  Did
>he coin it from the verb used in the LXX?  And since Luke used it in Acts,
>why didn't he use it in his Gospel--if he got it from Mark?
>
Robert Lindsey's writings are dreadfully undervalued by scholars of the
Synoptic Problem.  The last question you raise is a difficulty for
Markan Piority, which Lindsey rejected. If Luke used Mark which
contained TO EUAGGELION eight times, and if this noun form occurs in
Acts also written by Luke, it is very odd that Luke does not once use
the noun form in his gospel. Is it not more likely that the noun form
was not in Luke's source material for his gospel - that is to say, that
he did not use Mark?

A whole string of scholars, including Vincent Taylor, conclude that the
noun form TO EUAGGELION was added by Mark to his source material.

A possible explanation of why Luke does not have this noun in his gospel
but does use it in Acts,  is that it was absent from the source material
he used for his gospel, but present in the source material he used for
Acts.

A similar explanation could be given for the construction EGENETO
followed by finite verb. This occurs 22 times in the gospel of Luke, but
not once in Acts. In this instance, however, the phrase could have been
present in the source material Luke used for his gospel, but absent from
the source material he used for Acts.

EGENETO followed by finite verb is very much a Hebrew, not Aramaic,
construction,  and its frequent occurrence in the the gospel of Luke
would support Lindsey's view that in writing his gospel Luke used
documentary source material which was either written in the "Mishnaic"
Hebrew of the day, or was a fairly literal translation of such Hebrew
into Greek.

I do not accept Lindsey's synoptic hypothesis, but I do think his
writings, including his synopsis, provide very important insights.

Lindsey's synopsis is a massive achievement.  It is a masterpiece, and
is unique. I think copies can be ordered from the Jerusalem School of
Synoptic Research, though I am not expecting any favours from them if
demand suddenly increases!

Best wishes,
BRIAN WILSON

E-MAIL: brian@...        HOMEPAGE: ****  NEW HYPOTHESIS  ****

SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,           http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
10 York Close, Godmanchester,
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK                  ****  SISEHTOPYH WEN  ****

Thanks, Denis, for mentioning the work of Robert Lindsey. I don't think I have
read it, but vaguely recall having heard of him once or twice. Sounds
interesting.

  DENIS: An expression that Lindsey calls "one of the most fascinating of
Mark's
  stereotypes" is the noun form TO EUAGGELION.  Mark uses it 8xx, Matthew 4xx,
  and Luke not at all in his Gospel.  Matthew sometimes uses it in the same
  context as Mark, but 3 times expands it to TO EUAGGELION THS BASILEIAS, "the
  Gospel of the Kingdom".  The verb form, EUAGGELIZOMAI, appears in the LXX,
  and occurs a number of times throughout the N.T. as a verb or participle.
  The noun is obviously developed from this verb.

LEONARD: I don't like the expression: << Matthew expands it (i.e. to
euaggelion) to 'to euaggelion tes basileias' >>. Not only does the formulation
imply Marcan priority, but it also does not do justice to the Matthean
evidence in context. It is important to see precisely where and why Matthew
uses this expression, and that in these contexts it has full intelligibility
in itself without any reference to the text of Mark. In 4:23 (its first
occurrence), the expression refers to a particular proclamation of good news
that has been reported in summary form in 4:17 (repent, the KINGDOM of the
heavens is at hand). This message of Jesus is THE (TO, an anaphoric definite
article) "good news, or announcement, of the kingdom" that is referred to in
4:23. So we do not have here an expansion of a Marcan formula, but rather a
specific expression that is fully native to and intelligible within Matthew's
Gospel itself. The expression is next taken up in a literary inclusion echoing
4:23 in 9:35, still with an ultimate point of reference in 4:17. Finally, we
find the expression <<TOUTO to euaggelion tes basileias >> in Matt 24:14,
where again the expression has a specific reference, this time to the written
text of Matthew itself, which now embodies in its own way the proclamation of
Jesus summarized in 4:17, and echoes the frequent Deuteronomic manner of
speaking, in the retrospective self-reference of the implied author: "the
words of, or written in, THIS law".

As for the OT background of the term <<euaggelion>> in Matthew, it is
perfectly clear from Matt 11:5, with no parallel in Mark, that it is the 2nd
Isaiah background that is significant here. More specifically, it will be seen
that the MESSAGE of Jesus in 4:17 corresponds, in content, with the message of
Isaiah in 52:7 LXX, where the verbal form << euaggelizomai >> is found
(twice), and the "good news" proclaimed is spelled out in the message <<
basileusei sou ho theos >> (your God will become king = the message of Jesus
"the kingdom of the heavens [God] has drawn near"). Thus, Matthew's use of
gospel terminology is closely tied to OT usage throughout. It adds to the OT
usage only the substantive FORM << euaggelion>>, but reveals, in 11:5, a
knowledge of the verbal form of the root in its OT source. So when Denis says
above: << The verb form, EUAGGELIZOMAI, appears in the LXX,
  and occurs a number of times throughout the N.T. as a verb or participle.
  The noun is obviously developed from this verb.>>, this is in fact "obvious"
only in the case of Matthew (and Luke too), and not from the Gospel of Mark.


When we come to the Gospel of Mark, the connection of gospel language to the
OT, and to Isaiah in particular, is virtually lost, and instead we have the
influence of Pauline language, in which (1) the term "gospel" is used in the
absolute and (2) it almost always refers now to the message ABOUT Jesus
preached by the missionaries themselves, and summoning the FAITH (in Jesus) of
the hearers. This is the usage we find in the Gospel of Mark, where it is
particularly stiking in Mark 1:1 and 1:15 (note that Matthew NEVER uses faith
terminology the way it is used in Mark 1:15, and in Paul throughout, as
denoting the appropriate response to the Christian, gospel proclamation). The
Gospel thus becomes almost identified with the Jesus it proclaims (thus the
frequent use of the term "gospel" in the absolute, only in Mark, in the
gospels, and almost in apposition with Jesus (e.g., "for my sake and the
gospel" in Mark 10:29, etc.). In sum, the use of gospel terminology in Matthew
shows a clear connection to OT (Isaian) usage, whereas in Mark the same
terminology is influenced instead by a later ecclesiastical usage (a
proclamation about Christ), made popular in the writings of Paul, particularly
in the letter to the Romans.

DENIS: Questions arise:  How did Mark come to use this term?  Did he get it
from
  Matthew?

LEONARD: Yes, but he gave the term an entirely new sense, influenced by
Pauline, and generally later ecclesiastical usage.

DENIS:  Not from Luke, obviously, since it isn't used in that Gospel.

LEONARD: Correct

DENIS: Did he coin it from the verb used in the LXX?

LEONARD: There is no evidence that he did. And the evidence that he was even
aware of that usage is minimal or non-existent. If this question were asked
about Matt, an affirmative response would have much in its favor.

DENIS:  And since Luke used it in Acts, why didn't he use it in his Gospel--if
he got it from Mark?

LEONARD: As Brian has observed, Luke was probably not using Mark's Gospel as a
source. The fact that Luke does not use the substantive euaggelion in his
Gospel is certainly no more surprising than the fact that he does not use it
in chapters 1-14 of Acts. The Acts evidence could even be taken to imply that
Luke is aware that the term Gospel as used by Paul is a relatively late
ecclesiastical usage.

DENIS: Lindsey suggests that Mark picked up this phrase from Acts, where it
appears as a noun two times.  In Acts 15:7 it appears in a speech by Peter,
and in
  20:24 it appears in Paul's instructions to the elders at Ephesus. Lindsey
  further suggests that it's a Pauline coinage that was apparently picked up
  by the Acts author.

LEONARD: I think it is too specific to say that Mark picked up the phrase from
Acts, but the Acts usages certainly illustrate the late usage that has
affected Mark's use of gospel terminology throughout his Gospel.

DENIS: The phrase does appear in Paul's writings, e.g., 11xx in Romans, 8xx in
1
Corinthians, and 7xx in 2 Corinthians.  The cases vary--mostly accusative,
genitive, and dative, but sometimes as a participle.

LEONARD: I think Pauline usage is the best bet to account for Mark's use of
Gospel terminology, but I would not at all rule out the possibility that Mark
knew Acts as well. In fact, as Denis suggested in his concluding remarks,
there is much other evidence that would point in this direction.

Leonard Maluf

On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:
YURI wrote:

<<Many good reasons are available. I like the argument from form. Sayings
collections are a well attested literary form in classical antiquity. And
this is where GTh comes in also. I think this would qualify as both
"strong" and "fresh reason" for Q/NMM since GTh was unavailable at the
time when the original Q hypothesis was formulated.>>

> To which, the obvious response is: a posse ad esse non valet illatio.
> It never ceases to amaze me that the existence of a second century
> Gnostic document of a "sayings" type, the Gospel of Thomas,

Leonard,

How do you know it is "a second century Gnostic document"? On what do you
base this?

> can be thought by anyone to constitute PROOF for the existence of Q in
> the first century. And the fact that Yuri, or anyone else for that
> matter, <likes> the argument from form doesn't, unfortunately, add
> anything at all to its validity from a logical point of view.

So, on the assumption that substantially GTh dates to the first century,
this would not be good support for Q?

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

In a message dated 98-10-11 10:16:34 EDT, yuku@... writes:

  << Leonard, How do you know it [GTh] is "a second century Gnostic document"?
On what do you base this? >>

Frankly, I have been careful not to waste much time on GTh, but what I have
read of it certainly supports what I think is the common scholarly view that
it dates from the second century and evidences a type of Gnostic thinking that
belongs to that, as opposed to the preceding, century. It certainly seems to
me that its authors knew and are adapting our canonical Gospel tradition in a
way that suits their heretical purposes.

  << So, on the assumption that substantially GTh dates to the first century,
  this would not be good support for Q?>>

It could I suppose be said that Q "substantially dates to the first century",
if by that you mean it employs CONTENTS form first century sources (our
canonical Gospels, at least). But, no, I don't see how that would advance the
cause of Q, as classically understood. Please enlighten me.

Leonard Maluf

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:
> In a message dated 98-10-11 10:16:34 EDT, yuku@... writes:
>
>  << Leonard, How do you know it [GTh] is "a second century Gnostic
> document"? On what do you base this? >>

> Frankly, I have been careful not to waste much time on GTh,

This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you've already decided that GTh is
second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of
adequate methodology.

> but what I have read of it certainly supports what I think is the
> common scholarly view that it dates from the second century and
> evidences a type of Gnostic thinking that belongs to that, as opposed
> to the preceding, century. It certainly seems to me that its authors
> knew and are adapting our canonical Gospel tradition in a way that
> suits their heretical purposes.

These are merely assertions of belief based apparently merely on cursory
familiarity with the evidence. I invite you to consider Stevan Davies' The
Gospel Of Thomas Homepage, please, to familiarize yourself with this
subject adequately.

http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html

This should give you enough material to read for a few days, Leonard. It
would help your understanding of this problem if you consdered all this
evidence fully.

>  << So, on the assumption that substantially GTh dates to the first
> century, this would not be good support for Q?>>

> It could I suppose be said that Q "substantially dates to the first
> century",

But that's merely part of definition of Q.

> if by that you mean it employs CONTENTS form first century sources
> (our canonical Gospels, at least).

I use Q as it is commonly defined. You, on the other hand, have merely
asserted your own beliefs once again.

> But, no, I don't see how that would advance the cause of Q, as
> classically understood. Please enlighten me.

You seem even less familiar with this whole subject that I could even
imagine, Leonard. Obviously you had problems understanding the question
I've asked you. Here it is again, in a more extended form.

If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
support for Q?

I hope the above is sufficiently clear now.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

At 02:15 PM 10/11/98 -0400, yuri wrote:
>

>This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you've already decided that GTh is
>second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of
>adequate methodology.
>

[snipped]

>These are merely assertions of belief based apparently merely on cursory
>familiarity with the evidence. I invite you to consider Stevan Davies' The
>Gospel Of Thomas Homepage, please, to familiarize yourself with this
>subject adequately.
>
>http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
>
>This should give you enough material to read for a few days, Leonard. It
>would help your understanding of this problem if you consdered all this
>evidence fully.

[snipped- again]

If I may just interject here on a conversation that is not mine- or as we
say here in the South, "I ain't got no dog in this fight..."

I think it is improper, dear Yuri, for you to presume, as you do here, that
Leonard is unfamiliar with the material.  It is dangerous to try to say what
others know or do not know...

I had the honor of meeting Leonard at the CBA meeting in Scranton and was
completely amazed at his depth of knowledge and eloquent speech and manners.

In short- I would not attempt to hazard such a thing as saying that he does
not know a particular issue when it comes to Gospel research.


Best to all.


Jim
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology
jwest@...

I suppose we could continue this discussion a bit for the edification of the
list:

YURI: Leonard, How do you know it [GTh] is "a second century Gnostic
  document"? On what do you base this?

  LEONARD: Frankly, I have been careful not to waste much time on GTh,

  YURI: This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you've already decided that GTh is
  second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of
  adequate methodology.

LEONARD: No, not BEFORE looking at the evidence. Precisely BY a cursory look
at the evidence it seemed clear to me that the document was of little
relevance to an understanding of the four Gospels, because so obviously late.
I would say the same, e.g., about the orthodox letters of Ignatius, etc. I
think this is good methodology, but I am of course open to EVIDENCE that the
Gospel of Thomas is really a first century work, or goes back to a first
century work other than our canonical Gospels. And that's why I asked you to
enlighten me (I didn't anticipate lunar illumination, whereby I am sent off to
another web-page for the information..).

(LEONARD: but what I have read of it certainly supports what I think is the
common scholarly view that it dates from the second century and
evidences a type of Gnostic thinking that belongs to that, as opposed
to the preceding, century. It certainly seems to me that its authors
knew and are adapting our canonical Gospel tradition in a way that
suits their heretical purposes.)

YURI: These are merely assertions of belief based apparently merely on cursory
familiarity with the evidence. I invite you to consider Stevan Davies' The
  Gospel Of Thomas Homepage, please, to familiarize yourself with this
  subject adequately.

LEONARD: I don't see where "belief" enters in here (you may remove the word
"heretical" from the above if you wish). Most other second century documents,
even quite orthodox ones, I would evaluate as likewise but marginally relevant
for NT study for the same reason that I reject the relevance of GTh.  And
might you do us the courtesy of summarizing Stevan Davies' arguments for me in
a few salient points?

snip

YURI: I use Q as it is commonly defined. You, on the other hand, have merely
asserted your own beliefs once again.

LEONARD: Could you give us your definition of Q please? Sounds like it must be
interesting. I thought Q was simply defined as the source of the Gospel
material that is common to Matt and Lk, but has no parallel in Mark --
material which, of course, needs no further explanation (hence no "Q") once it
is seen that Luke is fully familiar with the Gospel of Matt. And I thought,
too, that this is how "Q is commonly defined", as opposed to being my own
idiocyncratic definition.

(LEONARD: But, no, I don't see how that would advance the cause of Q, as
classically understood. Please enlighten me.)

YURI: You seem even less familiar with this whole subject that I could even
  imagine, Leonard. Obviously you had problems understanding the question
  I've asked you. Here it is again, in a more extended form.

  If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
  sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
  canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
  support for Q?

LEONARD: Why on earth would anyone ASSUME such a thing? And, no, even given
the literally preposterous assumption, I don't see how it provides good
support for the existence of Q (unless you are implying that GTh is itself Q,
or a close cousin), which still remains unnecessary once one correctly
understands the relationship of Luke's Gospel to Matthew's.

Leonard Maluf

Regarding the veracity of the Nag Hammadi codex "Gospel of Thomas".  Clearly
the provenance of the work seemed to be no earlier than fourth or fifth
century Egypt.  Yet there is basis for the hypothesis that it was
derived in part from a purer early source as the Parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen seemed clearer in the context of G of Thomas than in the synoptic
Gospels.  Some of the Gospel of Thomas seemed to suffer edition and was too
strange, not supported adequately by context to be considered pure extant
text originating from Jesus or Thomas.  The Synoptic texts we have available
show the evidence of copyist or late editorial error yet the texts remain
pure enough to be considered of a factual nature, supported adequately by
the events that followed and the testing of the ideas and commands put forth
by Jesus.

David Hall
http://www.erols.com/quentino

Dear Dennis

Thanks for the interesting post.  Some minor comments:

(1) One of Mark's 8 uses of TO EUAGGELION is 16.15 so we should probably reckon
with figures of 4/7/0+2 (Matthew / Mark / Luke + Acts) rather than 4/8/0+2.

(2) We need to consider not only Luke's apparent preference for the verb
EUAGGELIZOMAI in Luke but also in Acts.  The verb has figures of 1/0/10+15,
thus Luke has a strongly marked preference for the verb in Acts too and the
pattern is fairly consistent, 0 + 2 usages of EUAGGELION and 10 + 15 usages of
EUAGGELIZOMAI.

(3) You rightly point out that the term is used in the LXX.  Most famously and
importantly it comes in Isaiah 61, quoted in the manifesto sermon at Nazara,
Luke 4.16-30.  I would have thought that Luke's clear preference for the LXX
EUAGGELIZOMAI here, in a key text in a key location, is enough to hint that
this LXX usage pervades Luke's thinking.  It is this that marginalises the noun
EUAGGELION  in Luke's writing.

Mark
-------------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre    M.S.Goodacre@...
  Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

--------------------------------------------

Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Jim West wrote:

	 ...

> I think it is improper, dear Yuri, for you to presume, as you do here,
> that Leonard is unfamiliar with the material.

I think it is improper, dear Jim, for you to presume, as you do here, to
lecture me on how I should interpret the reply of Leonard.

	 ...

> In short- I would not attempt to hazard such a thing as saying that he
> does not know a particular issue when it comes to Gospel research.

My reply was based on what Leonard said. I'm standing by what I said
previously. If anything, Leonard's subsequent reply only added weight to
my previous estimate of his state of familiarity with this problem.

Best to all,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:

	 ...

>  YURI: This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you've already decided that GTh is
>  second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of
>  adequate methodology.

> LEONARD: No, not BEFORE looking at the evidence. Precisely BY a
> cursory look at the evidence it seemed clear to me that the document
> was of little relevance to an understanding of the four Gospels,
> because so obviously late.

I assure you that you were wrong.

> I would say the same, e.g., about the orthodox letters of Ignatius,
> etc. I think this is good methodology, but I am of course open to
> EVIDENCE that the Gospel of Thomas is really a first century work, or
> goes back to a first century work other than our canonical Gospels.

If you are not yet familiar with such evidence, it is perfectly clear that
you still have a lot to learn about this problem. I've given you a good
lead on where to look to advance your knowledge in this area.

Since you seem to be a beginner in this area, I really don't know where to
begin to help you. I've been engaged in this debate for a long time
already. So how about this opening of _The Christology And Protology of
the Gospel of Thomas_ from our friend Steve Davies? (Published in Journal
of Biblical Literature Volume 111, Number 4, Winter 1992.)

[quote]

http://www.miseri.edu/davies/thomas/jblprot.htm

A consensus is emerging in American scholarship that the Gospel of
Thomas is a text independent of the synoptics and that it was compiled
in the mid to late first century. [[J.H. Sieber maintains the position
that "there is very little redactional evidence, if any, for holding
that our Synoptic Gospels were the sources of Thomas' synoptic
sayings. In the great majority of sayings there is no such evidence at
all....As of the date of this article (1988) almost all those who are
currently at work on Thomas have come to hold that it represents an
independent tradition" ("The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament,"
in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings [ed. J. Goehring et al.;
Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990] 69, 70). C. Hedrick concludes: "I am
personally convinced that our present Coptic version of the Gospel of
Thomas was not derived from the synoptic Gospels. The evidence, in my
opinion, leads inevitably to that conclusion" ("Thomas and the
Synoptics: Aiming at a Consensus," SecCent 7/1 [1989-90] 56); cf. also
R. Cameron's arguments for Thomas's independence in Forum 2/2 [1986]
3-39). For a recent review of the discussion of Thomas's independence
and an extensive argument supporting Thomas's independence, see S.
Patterson, "The Gospel of Thomas Within the Development of Early
Christianity" (diss., Claremont, 1988). He concludes that "Thomas is
not linked to the synoptic gospels in any generative sort of way. The
material used by Thomas' author/editor did not come from the canonical
gospels, nor was its overall plan conceived along lines similar to
those which governed the formation of all four of the canonical
gospels. In this sense the Gospel of Thomas is to be considered
autonomous: it is to be understood in terms of its own reception and
treatment of the Jesus tradition, and the inner logic by which it
appropriates traditional material" (p. 147).

[end quote]

> And that's why I asked you to enlighten me (I didn't anticipate lunar
> illumination, whereby I am sent off to another web-page for the
> information..).

And that's why I gave you a good lead to the evidence that you say you
seek.

> YURI: These are merely assertions of belief based apparently merely on cursory
> familiarity with the evidence. I invite you to consider Stevan Davies' The
>  Gospel Of Thomas Homepage, please, to familiarize yourself with this
>  subject adequately.

> LEONARD: I don't see where "belief" enters in here (you may remove the
> word "heretical" from the above if you wish).

So now you know where "belief" entered in there.

> Most other second century documents, even quite orthodox ones, I would
> evaluate as likewise but marginally relevant for NT study for the same
> reason that I reject the relevance of GTh.

Please note you have not yet outlined a single reason for lateness of GTh
beyond statements of belief.

> And might you do us the courtesy of summarizing Stevan Davies'
> arguments for me in a few salient points?

Done already. I still recommend you look up Steve's page, since it
provides a very thorough and very balanced review of all the evidence,
including the opposite viewpoint.

> YURI: I use Q as it is commonly defined. You, on the other hand, have merely
> asserted your own beliefs once again.
>
> LEONARD: Could you give us your definition of Q please?

Standard definition, I assure you. Q = Synoptic Sayings Source. First
century.

> YURI: You seem even less familiar with this whole subject that I could even
>  imagine, Leonard. Obviously you had problems understanding the question
>  I've asked you. Here it is again, in a more extended form.
>
>  If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
>  sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
>  canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
>  support for Q?

> LEONARD: Why on earth would anyone ASSUME such a thing?

Such a question, Leonard, betrays your lack of familiarity with this area
of scholarship. Sorry.

> And, no, even given the literally preposterous assumption,

Such a view, Leonard, betrays your lack of familiarity with this area of
scholarship.

> I don't see how it provides good support for the existence of Q

I'm sorry to hear this. Steve's page will give you a large bibliography of
books to read. You've missed on a lot of recent academic work in this
area, Leonard, but it's never too late to learn new things.

> (unless you are implying that GTh is itself Q,

Incorrect.

> or a close cousin),

Now you're getting closer to my meaning, finally.

> which still remains unnecessary once one correctly understands the
> relationship of Luke's Gospel to Matthew's.

Your assumption only. For myself, I freely accept some level of Lk's
familiarity with Mt. I don't think this represents any kind of an argument
against Q. Perhaps a very flimsy argument only.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

unsubscribe

Leonard Maluflen wrote (SNIP) -
>I don't like the expression: << Matthew expands it (i.e. to
>euaggelion) to 'to euaggelion tes basileias' >>. Not only does the
>formulation imply Marcan priority...

Is there not another possibility - that Mark was written second, and
Matthew third, with Mark dependent on Luke, and Matthew dependent on
Mark?

That is what Lindsey posited.

Best wishes,
BRIAN WILSON                  HOMEPAGE *** NEW HYPOTHESIS ***

                                 http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Friend and Jerusalem School Scholar Steven Notley comments on my earlier
post about Mark's choice of words:

Dennis,

Thanks for copying the discussion about Markan vocabulary,
particularly in connection with the use of EUANGGELION (or lack
thereof).

It has probably already been mentioned by someone, but it is worth
repeating <why> Luke "prefers" the verbal form over the nominal.  It is
precisely the same reason that the nominal form does not appear in the
LXX.   One can not say "Gospel" in Hebrew.  The notion of "good news" is
expressed through the verbal form EUANGELIZOMAI not the nominal
EUANGGELION.  Thus, it is literally rendered by the LXX.
In other words, the predominance of the verbal form over the nominal in
Luke's Gospel and Acts is an influence of the Hebraisms inherent in
Luke's source(s).

On the broader issue of "septuagintalisms vs translation Greek", NT
scholars faced with the difficulty of explaining how Luke could base his
gospel on Mark and yet at points be more Hebraic than Mark, have
generally dismissed these Hebraisms as Luke's style of imitating the
LXX.

This explanation is wrong on at least two accounts:

1.  It is based upon the outdated 19th century notion that Hebrew was a
dead language in the first century.   Thus, semitisms in the Gospels
must either be Aramaisms or Septuagintalisms.  James Barr ("Hebrew,
Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age," The Cambridge History of
Judaism, pp. 79-114) has rightly scored NT scholarship for not
acknowledging the unquestionable data (and the implications) that Hebrew
was a living languge in the first century.  Once the error in this
assumption is acknowledged, Luke's Hebraisms take on a whole new
significance.

2.  NT scholarship remains blind to the phenomenon of "non-Septuagintal
Hebraisms" in Luke's text.  Scholars here in Jerusalem have been noting
them and informally compiling a list.  At some point it would be nice to
publish them together in an article.  Their existence fundamentally
undermines the assumption that all of Luke's Hebraisms are
Septuatintalisms.

Hope this contributes to the discussion.

Shalom,
Steve Notley
Jerusalem University College

I have basis to believe that the Q - in its original Greek form - is the only
inspired word of God.  The following premise supports this conclusion, and I
have recent documentation from archeological digs in Isreal and ancient Rome. 
My friend who was an intern at one of the sites emailed me some info on the
findings about a month ago.  Two weeks ago he arrived home, and I questioned him
about the email he had sent me.  He told me to just forget about it.  He said
there is nothing we can do.  I wrote to the director of the dig, Dr. Goldstein,
and asked him to explain his findings.  He told me that the dig had been a
failure and that they had found nothing.  I believe that he was lying, and
covering up a conspiracy led by the government of Isreal for reasons I am not
sure of.




1.) The reason the author of the Q is unknown is this - God himself is the
actual author of the Q as shown by Jesus' words to his disciples in the original
manuscript before Nero altered the text of the Q.  "You are those who have
continued with me in my trials; and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to
me, a message, that you may preserve, and deliver to the twelve tribes of Israel
as well as all my people. (original Q reference)



---
MR


Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com

Mark Rogers wrote:

> I have basis to believe that the Q - in its original Greek form - is the only
inspired word of God.

Snip . . .

> 1.) The reason the author of the Q is unknown is this - God himself is the
actual author of the Q as shown by Jesus' words to his disciples in the original
manuscript before Nero altered the text of the Q.

snip . . .

I believe it was Nietzsche who wrote ' It is curious that God decided to learn
Greek when he wanted to become an author -- and that he did not learn it
better.' (quoting from memory, so it may be a little off)
--
Dave Jones
----------------------------------
The older I grow the more I distrust the familiar
doctrine that age brings wisdom.

H.L. Mencken

Mark Rogers wrote:

> I have basis to believe that the Q - in its original Greek form - is the only
inspired word of God.

I have reason to believe that Y'shua's sayings in the original Aramaic is the
only inspiredword of God.  Actually Mark, I am doing a reductio on your
statement.

> The following premise supports this conclusion, and I have recent
documentation from archeological digs in Isreal and ancient Rome.  My friend who
was an intern at one of the sites emailed me some info on the findings about a
month ago.  Two weeks ago he arrived home, and I questioned him about the email
he had sent me.  He told me to just forget about it.  He said there is nothing
we can do.  I wrote to the director of the dig, Dr. Goldstein, and asked him to
explain his findings.  He told me that the dig had been a failure and that they
had found nothing.  I believe that he was lying, and covering up a conspiracy
led by the government of Isreal for reasons I am not sure of.

You do not mention what the premise is, what the documentation is, what was
supposed to have  been found,or why there would be a conspiracy.

> 1.) The reason the author of the Q is unknown is this - God himself is the
actual author of the Q as shown by Jesus' words to his disciples in the original
manuscript before Nero altered the text of the Q.

Nero altered the text of Q?  You're gonna have to unpack this one.

Jack

At 03:33 PM 10/12/98 -0700, you wrote:

[snipped - mercifully for your sake]

>1.) The reason the author of the Q is unknown is this - God himself is the
actual author of the Q as shown by Jesus' words to his disciples in the
original manuscript before Nero altered the text of the Q.  "You are those
who have continued with me in my trials; and I assign to you, as my Father
assigned to me, a message, that you may preserve, and deliver to the twelve
tribes of Israel as well as all my people. (original Q reference)
>

What rubbish.  I cannot express in terms to straightforward how absolutely
foolish and idiotic this is.

I suggest that you abandon this dead end road and pursue something worth
while.  (Which of course you will take to mean that I am involved in the
cover up!).  Seriously though, this is a ridiculous assertion.... useful
only for late night comedy shows....


run, flee, save yourself while you can from your foolishness!!!!!!

:)


Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology
jwest@...

More quibbling about q.

(LEONARD: No, not BEFORE looking at the evidence. Precisely BY a
cursory look at the evidence it seemed clear to me that the document
[GTh] was of little relevance to an understanding of the four Gospels,
because so obviously late.)

YURI: I assure you that you were wrong.

LEONARD: Your display of scholarship so far, Yuri, affords me less than full
comfort from your "assurance".

YURI: Since you seem to be a beginner in this area, I really don't know where
to
begin to help you.

LEONARD: Don't trouble yourself, Yuri. I have made the conscious and wise
decision to remain a beginner in this area, which doesn't appear to me to
deserve further attention or initiation. The only thing I would add to this is
that I am, of course, open to EVIDENCE that GTh is in fact something more than
it appears to be, namely, a tendentious, marginal, second-century (probably
late second-century) parody on Christian wisdom, using and abusing numerous
sayings of Jesus that were the common property of second-century Christians as
mediated, ultimately, through the Church's canonical gospels.

YURI: I've been engaged in this debate for a long time already. So how about
this opening of _The Christology And Protology of the Gospel of Thomas_ from
our friend Steve Davies? (Published in Journal of Biblical Literature Volume
111, Number 4, Winter 1992.)

LEONARD: Thanks, Yuri, for this reference. I will check it out. Looks
interesting.


YURI: [quote] A consensus is emerging in American scholarship that the Gospel
of
  Thomas is a text independent of the synoptics and that it was compiled
  in the mid to late first century.

LEONARD: I suppose this shouldn't amaze me, but it does. After all, a majority
of scholars also hold Markan priority.

(snip)

YURI: (Continuation of quote) "As of the date of this article (1988) almost
all those who are currently at work on Thomas have come to hold that it
represents an
  independent tradition"

LEONARD: This is the problem I think. "almost all those who are currently at
work on Thomas have come to hold...". I wickedly suspect that it is an
original interest in Thomas, and what motivates that interest, that makes
precisely these scholars (those currently at work on Thomas) predisposed to
the conclusions they come to. I doubt that these scholars will be able to
persuade a majority of scholars in the NT field of their conclusions by valid
argumentation (i.e., other than by pointing to a consensus among themselves!)
This is a very special class of scholars to begin with, the kind who would die
(God bless them!) rather than abandon q, even if it is demonstrated that Lk
knew Matt and that therefore the q hypothesis is logically superfluous.

YURI: quoting S. Patterson, "The Gospel of Thomas Within the Development of
Early Christianity" (diss., Claremont, 1988): "Thomas is not linked to the
synoptic gospels in any generative sort of way. The material used by Thomas'
author/editor did not come from the canonical gospels,

LEONARD: thus far, simply an assertion -- granted, the conclusion of his work,
which I would have to read.

YURI: (continuing the quote): nor was its overall plan conceived along lines
similar to those which governed the formation of all four of the canonical
gospels.

LEONARD: Certainly true, and also evident at a glance (i.e., not requiring
extensive study of GTh).

QUOTE CONTINUED: In this sense the Gospel of Thomas is to be considered
  autonomous...

LEONARD: not quite a logical inference from the above. The logical inference
from the fact that "its overall plan [is not] conceived along lines similar to
those which governed the formation of all four of the canonical gospels" is
that it is an ORIGINAL work, not that it is AUTONOMOUS, in the sense of
independent of the canonical gospel tradition. It simply has a new literary
form, presumably imposed on older materials, some of which seem to be our
canonical gospels, creatively and/or perversely quarried and manipulated.

YURI: Please note you have not yet outlined a single reason for lateness of
GTh
  beyond statements of belief.

LEONARD: I have in fact made no statements of belief. Furthermore, what is
needed is reasons for the earliness of a document for which no confirmatory
evidence of earliness exists. Both manuscripts and external references to the
Gospel of Thomas place its original composition at the very earliest in the
second century, to my knowledge. Therefore, I do not (yet) need to PROVE that
it is late, by NT standards.

YURI: definition of q: Standard definition, I assure you. Q = Synoptic Sayings
Source. First century.

LEONARD: I see. The definition of Q no longer requires a reference to material
common to Matt and Lk. Interesting, as I thought it would be.

(YURI: If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
support for Q?

LEONARD: Why on earth would anyone ASSUME such a thing?)

YURI: Such a question, Leonard, betrays your lack of familiarity with this
area
  of scholarship. Sorry.

LEONARD: Are you sure you really want to stand by the implication of this
response, namely, that one should ASSUME that most of the sayings in the GTh
date to the first century? This would prove a point I made above about GTh
scholarship that some may otherwise have thought unkind. I confidently repeat
my challenge here: why should anyone ASSUME such a thing?

Leonard Maluf

In a message dated 98-10-12 11:44:23 EDT, brian@... writes:

<<
  Leonard Maluflen wrote (SNIP) -
  >I don't like the expression: << Matthew expands it (i.e. to
  >euaggelion) to 'to euaggelion tes basileias' >>. Not only does the
  >formulation imply Marcan priority...

BRIAN WILSON: Is there not another possibility - that Mark was written second,
and
  Matthew third, with Mark dependent on Luke, and Matthew dependent on
  Mark?

  That is what Lindsey posited.

LEONARD: I was trying to show, Brian, that it makes good sense to put Mark
after Matt and influenced by Pauline gospel terminology which seems not to
have affected Matthew at all. This seems more reasonable than supposing
Matthew to have copied Mark so closely, but at the same time to have removed
all traces of Pauline influence with respect to his use of gospel language,
which is instead clearly rooted in 2nd Isaiah, and based especially on Is 52:7
LXX, as the gospel proclamation contents found in Matt 4:17 suggests (cf. 4:23
and 9:35, which both point back to 4:17, and then 11:5; 24:14 and 26:13).
Making Luke the first of the Synoptic Gospels written is also problematic in
innumerable respects, as I believe most would agree.

  Leonard Maluf

In a message dated 98-10-12 13:18:13 EDT, densull@... writes:

  << It has probably already been mentioned by someone, but it is worth
  repeating <why> Luke "prefers" the verbal form over the nominal.  It is
  precisely the same reason that the nominal form does not appear in the
  LXX.   One can not say "Gospel" in Hebrew.  The notion of "good news" is
  expressed through the verbal form EUANGELIZOMAI not the nominal
  EUANGGELION.  Thus, it is literally rendered by the LXX.
  In other words, the predominance of the verbal form over the nominal in
  Luke's Gospel and Acts is an influence of the Hebraisms inherent in
  Luke's source(s).

  << On the broader issue of "septuagintalisms vs translation Greek", NT
  scholars faced with the difficulty of explaining how Luke could base his
  gospel on Mark and yet at points be more Hebraic than Mark, have
  generally dismissed these Hebraisms as Luke's style of imitating the
  LXX.

  << This explanation is wrong on at least two accounts:

  << 1.  It is based upon the outdated 19th century notion that Hebrew was a
  dead language in the first century.   Thus, semitisms in the Gospels
  must either be Aramaisms or Septuagintalisms.  James Barr ("Hebrew,
  Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age," The Cambridge History of
  Judaism, pp. 79-114) has rightly scored NT scholarship for not
  acknowledging the unquestionable data (and the implications) that Hebrew
  was a living languge in the first century.  Once the error in this
  assumption is acknowledged, Luke's Hebraisms take on a whole new
  significance.

  << 2.  NT scholarship remains blind to the phenomenon of "non-Septuagintal
  Hebraisms" in Luke's text.  Scholars here in Jerusalem have been noting
  them and informally compiling a list.  At some point it would be nice to
  publish them together in an article.  Their existence fundamentally
  undermines the assumption that all of Luke's Hebraisms are
  Septuatintalisms.

  Hope this contributes to the discussion.>>

LEONARD: I find this a most interesting line of inquiry and look foreward to
the results of this research. Do others agree? Though I must confess to some
surprise at Denis' confidence in stating the REASON for the non-use by Luke of
the substantive euaggelion in his Gospel. On the hypothesis that Luke is using
Matt, Luke removes four uses of the term euaggelion from his source. This does
not surprise me, however, because the four uses all occur in clearly
structural (4:23 and 9:35) or self-identifying (24:14 and 26:13) passages of
Matt, which Lk conventionally avoids copying.

Leonard Maluf

Dear Leonard,

Thanks for your interest!

You wrote:

LEONARD: I find this a most interesting line of inquiry and look forward to
the results of this research. Do others agree? Though I must confess to some
surprise at Denis' confidence in stating the REASON for the non-use by Luke
of
the substantive euaggelion in his Gospel. On the hypothesis that Luke is
using
Matt, Luke removes four uses of the term euaggelion from his source. This
does
not surprise me, however, because the four uses all occur in clearly
structural (4:23 and 9:35) or self-identifying (24:14 and 26:13) passages of
Matt, which Lk conventionally avoids copying.

Leonard Maluf
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DENNIS:  I was just passing along an email I received from Dr. Steven Notley
of Jerusalem University College, so that was Steven's statement, not mine.
(I don't presume to carry enough scholarly "weight" to make such firm
statements, even though I do agree with Steve.)

Steve is one of the
Christian scholars of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, which is a
consortium of Christian and Jewish scholars who have been working on the
synoptics puzzle for many years.  The JSSR developed from the research
collaboration of Dr. David Flusser, Professor of Comparative Religion at
Hebrew University, and Dr. Robert Lindsey, Pastor of the Narkiss Street
Baptist Church in Jerusalem (for about forty years).  I personally regard
Dr. Flusser to be the foremost Jewish authority on the New Testament in the
world today.

Lindsey started his journey to discovery in the sixties when he decided that
a new Modern Hebrew translation of the Gospel was needed for use in Israel.
As a (Princeton) seminary-trained Markan priorist, he logically concluded
that he should start with the Greek Mark.  The remarkable facility with
which he found he could translate parts of Mark into Hebrew led him to the
conclusion that a Hebrew document was behind our synoptic Gospels.  Dr. Bob
later discovered that GLuke preserved a great deal more of the original
Hebrew idiom and word order.  That, in a nutshell, is how the Jerusalem
School Synoptic Hypothesis began to develop.

So, the JSSR scholars have concluded that our Greek GLuke stands closer to
an early Hebrew tradition than either GMatthew or GMark--even though
GMatthew evidences much aquaintance with Jewish tradition and culture and
GLuke does not always exhibit the same understanding. One example of this:
the Beatitudes in Matthew relate much more closely to rabbinic teaching
methods--like hinting at pertinent passages in Hebrew Scripture--than
GLuke's cryptic version.

The Jerusalem School scholars have continued to find, as did Dr. Lindsey
(who died in 1995), that GLuke's Greek word order in most cases closely
parallels Hebrew syntax, and can very easily be translated back into good
Biblical Hebrew.

There's information on the JSSR and its founders and its scholars on the
Jerusalem Perspective web page

www.jerusalemperspective.com

Jerusalem Perspective is one of the publications of the JSSR.  A new, more
scholarly Synoptics journal is in preparation as well.

There are a number of articles that can be examined without paying the
membership fee.  (The fee is designed to help support the scholars who
authored some articles. I think it's a good idea.)

Best wishes, Leonard!  I always appreciate your comments.

Dennis Sullivan  (Friend of the JSSR)

HEY, PREACHER!!!  NEED SOME AWESOME SERMON OUTLINES AND SEED HELPS AT DISCOUNT
PRICES???  LOOK NO FURTHER!  CUTTING EDGE SERMON OUTLINES AND SERIES FOR THE
SHEPHERD WHO WANTS TO FEED HIS SHEEP---MOST HAVE NEVER BEEN RELEASED!  NOT ONLY
WILL YOU BE ABLE TO PURCHASE QUALITY MATERIALS TO HELP BUILD YOUR
  CHURCH MEMBERSHIP---BUT YOU WILL ALSO HELP TO FULFILL THE GREAT COMMISSION
(MATT. 28:19,20), BY ENABLING US TO REACH UNREACHED TRIBES IN THE 10/40 WINDOW
WITH THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST!

  THIS MONTH'S SPECIAL SERIES IS ON "SPIRITUAL CONQUEST" (Victorious
  Spiritual Warfare). 70 FULL PAGES OF NOTES WITH GREEK MEANINGS.  SOME TOPICS
ARE:  Spiritual Beings [angelic and demonic ranks, def, etc.],
  Spiritual Warfare, Satan's Tactics [wiles],  The Present Condition of Satan, 
How to Live a Life of Spiritual Power,  Temptation & Response,
The Believer Under Attack,  The Wrestling Match,  How to Resist the Devil,
  Attacks Against the Mind,  Put on the Armors (definition and Greek meanings of
each piece of the armor) and MORE!!  WEEKS OF PREACHING MATERIAL FOR SPECIAL
DISCOUNT PRICE  OF $20, POSTAGE INCLUDED!  Order toll free 1=-800=325-6000
              or WRITE:
           Send Your check to:
        REACH A VILLAGE, OUTLINES
        GOSPEL REVIVAL MINISTERS
        P.O. BOX 340
        GRANDVILLE, MI 49418

  REMEMBER, WHEN YOU BUY FROM US, YOU WILL SAVE AND INVEST IN WORLD MISSIONS

  Until every tribe is reached.
  John Musser
  Matt. 24:14

Please visit our web site @  http://www2.novagate.net/~grmglobal/

Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) -
>
>You rightly point out that the term is used in the LXX.  Most famously
>and  importantly it comes in Isaiah 61, quoted in the manifesto sermon
>at Nazara,  Luke 4.16-30.  I would have thought that Luke's clear
>preference for the LXX  EUAGGELIZOMAI here, in a key text in a key
>location, is enough to hint that this LXX usage pervades Luke's
>thinking.  It is this that marginalises the noun  EUAGGELION  in Luke's
>writing.
>
I find it hard to follow the above argument. Lk 4.18 is a mis-quotation
of Isaiah 61.1-2a.  The end of Isaiah 61.1 is omitted,  and is replaced
by a phrase imported from Isaiah 58.6 - APOSTE(ILAI) TEQRAUMENOUJ EN
AFESAI, and the word KALESAI in Isaiah 61.2a is changed to KHRUCAI in
what Luke writes.  This does not seem at all like Luke himself quoting
from the LXX (to which he surely had access), but rather like the hybrid
proof-text we find in Mt 11.10b // Lk 7.27b which is composed of two
different parts of the OT and mistakenly ascribed to Isaiah in Mk 1.2.

I would suggest that what is quoted in Lk 4.18 is taken by Luke from his
source material, and that he faithfully follows its wording even though
he knows it is not an accurate reproduction of the LXX, just as it would
seem he must have done in Lk 7.27b where all fourteen of the words Luke
uses also occur in exactly the same order and exactly the same
grammatical forms in Matthew - in Mt 11.10. In both Lk 4.18 and in Lk
7.27b, Luke is not quoting from the LXX, but accurately reproducing
hybrid proof-texts from his source material.

I would also suggest that it is precisely because Luke is so faithful to
his source material that the noun EUAGGELION does not occur in the
gospel of Luke, and only twice in Acts. If Luke had the verb
EUANGGELIZOMAI in passages parallel to some of Mark's half dozen or so
occurrences of the noun EUAGGELION, that might have been evidence that
Luke used Mark, and that Luke himself preferred the verbal form to the
noun, substituting one for the other.  But Luke does not do this even
once, does he?

The occurrences of the noun EUAGGELION in Mark, but not in the Gospel of
Luke, are fully compatible with Mark having added EUAGGELION to his
source material, and Luke not being dependent on Mark. The phenomena
discussed above are a small, but nonetheless real, problem for the
hypothesis of Markan priority.

Best wishes,
BRIAN WILSON

E-MAIL: brian@...   NEW HYPOTHESIS ON PAGE 1 OF HOMEPAGE

SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,      SEE  http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
10 York Close, Godmanchester,
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK

--
Brian E. Wilson

This is one of those messages that I feel obliged to send out from time to time
reminding subscribers to restrict posts to the academic study of appropriate
Synoptic-L subject matter.  Please remember that this is an academic list and
not a chatroom; all posts should be relevant and appropriately worded.


-------------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre    M.S.Goodacre@...
  Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

--------------------------------------------

Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l

In a message dated 98-10-13 03:57:01 EDT, brian@... writes:

<< Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) -
  >
  >You rightly point out that the term is used in the LXX.  Most famously
  >and  importantly it comes in Isaiah 61, quoted in the manifesto sermon
  >at Nazara,  Luke 4.16-30.  I would have thought that Luke's clear
  >preference for the LXX  EUAGGELIZOMAI here, in a key text in a key
  >location, is enough to hint that this LXX usage pervades Luke's
  >thinking.  It is this that marginalises the noun  EUAGGELION  in Luke's
  >writing.
  >
BRIAN: I find it hard to follow the above argument. Lk 4.18 is a mis-quotation
  of Isaiah 61.1-2a.  The end of Isaiah 61.1 is omitted,  and is replaced
  by a phrase imported from Isaiah 58.6 - APOSTE(ILAI) TEQRAUMENOUJ EN
  AFESAI, and the word KALESAI in Isaiah 61.2a is changed to KHRUCAI in
  what Luke writes.  This does not seem at all like Luke himself quoting
  from the LXX (to which he surely had access), but rather like the hybrid
  proof-text we find in Mt 11.10b // Lk 7.27b which is composed of two
  different parts of the OT and mistakenly ascribed to Isaiah in Mk 1.2.

BRIAN (continued) I would suggest that what is quoted in Lk 4.18 is taken by
Luke from his source material, and that he faithfully follows its wording even
though
  he knows it is not an accurate reproduction of the LXX, just as it would
  seem he must have done in Lk 7.27b where all fourteen of the words Luke
  uses also occur in exactly the same order and exactly the same
  grammatical forms in Matthew - in Mt 11.10. In both Lk 4.18 and in Lk
  7.27b, Luke is not quoting from the LXX, but accurately reproducing
  hybrid proof-texts from his source material.

LEONARD: This is an argument from analogy, which I find somewhat
problematical. In the case of Matt 11:10//Lk 7:27, I accept the fact that Luke
has simply used the Isaian quotation as found in Matt. But to LIMIT Luke to
this kind of literal reproduction of sources on the basis of such texts I
think flies in the face of much evidence that Luke is in fact a highly
creative writer and theologian in his own right. (Brian's type of
argumentation always has the effect of placing all creativity at a point
behind the gospel texts we possess, and in the mind, therefore, of totally
anonomous authors.) And such literalness REALLY IS not compatible with
creative and inspired theological ingenuity. May I offer another reading of
this aspect of the present text?

Luke is in process, in Lk 4:16-29, of a very dramatic re-writing of Matt
13:53-58. But, as the strange form "Nazara" at the beginning of this pericope
clearly suggests, Luke also has in view here the PLACE in Matt which
corresponds sequentially to his (Lk's) purposeful re-placement of this story,
namely Matt 4:12-25. You will recall from recent discussion on this list that
it is in this part of Matt that a SUMMARY of Jesus' Galilean teaching is GIVEN
in 4:17 ([Repent], the kingdom of the heavens is at hand) and REFERRED TO in
4:23 as TO EUAGGELION TEES BALISEIAS which Jesus is preaching (with
KEERYSSEIN). (Note the double use of the term KEERYSSEIN, with Jesus as
subject, in Matt 4:17 and 4:23, which is reflected in Lk's double use of the
same term in 4:18-19, even at the expense of literal reproduction of the LXX,
where Lk has replaced KALESAI  with KEERYXAI). One of the things Luke is doing
in this pericope (among many others) is to reinterpret the MEANING of "the
kingdom of the heavens is at hand" in Matt's summary of Jesus' preaching in
terms of the FORGIVENESS OF SINS. It is no accident that the term APHESIS
occurs in this quotation at the exact center, by word count, of the quotation,
and that it is repeated twice in the quote. Luke has already re-worded (with
respect to Matt's text, and is later followed by Mark) the reference to John's
preaching in this same sense (Lk 3:3: "preaching (KEERYSSOON) a baptism of
repentance unto the forgiveness of sins", i.e., a forgiveness of sins to be
brought to Israel by Jesus (cf. Lk 1:76-77 and Acts 5:31). So John preaches a
repentance, preparing for the forgiveness of sins (the kingdom of the heavens)
which will be the subject of Jesus' preaching and the effect of his activity
(cf. Lk 7:27-35, followed by 7:36-50, esp. v. 47). (One may ask, on the basis
of this understanding, whether Lk's text of Matt read or omitted METANOEITE in
Matt 4:17). To confirm that this is in fact Luke's perspective, one may read,
among other texts, Acts 10:37-38, and especially 42-43. That this also
represents in a nut-shell Luke's view of the PREACHING of the church is clear
from Lk 24:47; Acts 2:38; 17:30, where John's and Jesus' "preaching" has
become the apostles' "preaching", just as it did in Matt 10:7, there, however,
in terms of the somewhat obscure "kingdom of the heavens" being at hand.


BRIAN: I would also suggest that it is precisely because Luke is so faithful
to
  his source material that the noun EUAGGELION does not occur in the
  gospel of Luke, and only twice in Acts. If Luke had the verb
  EUANGGELIZOMAI in passages parallel to some of Mark's half dozen or so
  occurrences of the noun EUAGGELION, that might have been evidence that
  Luke used Mark, and that Luke himself preferred the verbal form to the
  noun, substituting one for the other.  But Luke does not do this even
  once, does he?

LEONARD: no indeed.

BRIAN: The occurrences of the noun EUAGGELION in Mark, but not in the Gospel
of
  Luke, are fully compatible with Mark having added EUAGGELION to his
  source material, and Luke not being dependent on Mark. The phenomena
  discussed above are a small, but nonetheless real, problem for the
  hypothesis of Markan priority.

LEONARD: Agreed. But Mark's use of euaggelion also could be dependent on Matt
and at the same time influenced by Pauline usage, especially where his use of
the term IS parallel to Matt, and where he seems, for obvious reasons, to
absolutize a specific reference of Matthew, such as "THIS gospel of the
kingdom", which Mark renders "THE gospel" in chapter 13.

Leonard Maluf

Greetings, Brian!

Good comments offered in your recent message on the manifesto passage in
Luke!

Those misquotations from Isaiah may actually tend to validate Luke's source
material as containing something close to the actual words of Yeshua
(Jesus).

The misquoting and "twisting and turning" of Scriptures is actually one of
many well-known rabbinic teaching methods used in Yeshua's time, and was
used by Yeshua himself in this instance.  The misquoting of a well-known
passage by a teacher would quickly get the attention of his knowledgeable
hearers and cause them to think about what the teacher was trying to
communicate.

There are in Yeshua's teachings a number of examples of Remez (a Hebrew
term), which is the practice of hinting at, or alluding to, well-known
Scripture passages or even perhaps statements from and portions of other
popular writings of the day such as the DSS, the Targums, Pseudepigrapha,
etc.

One example of Remez might be Yeshua's statement "the Son of Man has come to
seek and to save that which was lost".  For those knowledgeable in the
Hebrew Bible (or the LXX or the Targums--some of which certainly existed
prior to the time of Yeshua), this "hint" would have quickly directed them
to Ezekiel 34, where the LORD says "I myself will seek and save the lost
ones"(quoting from memory).  Since many of Yeshua's hearers had learned the
Scriptures by "shinantam" (repetition and memorization) they didn't need to
carry a concordance with them as we do.  (In any case, it would have been a
big scroll!)  They would have easily understood that Yeshua here was making
a claim that he himself was the LORD who had come to seek and to save.  Talk
like that could lead to complications!

A striking example (to me, at least) of Remez can be found in Yeshua's
parable of the vineyard.  We're told that the Temple establishment people
realized that this parable was directed at them, but I think there was more
to it than simple deduction.   This parable obviously hints at Isaiah 5--the
"Song of the Vineyard".  The H.B. version and the LXX say something like "My
beloved made a vineyard, and built a fence around it, and built a tower in
it, and made a winepress there..."  The striking thing is that the Isaiah
Targum's wording says: "My beloved made a vineyard, and built a fence around
it, and built a SANCTUARY in it, and made an ALTAR..."
Now, if Yeshua's hearers were familiar with the Aramaic Targum version of
this passage, it's easy to see how  they would have arrived at their
conclusion.

There's even more.  (Forgive this lengthy excursion, please.  I get excited
about this stuff! Not very scholarly, I suppose...)  Yeshua finished his
parable by referring to Psalm 118--"the stone that the builders rejected has
become the head of the corner".  An ancient Midrash on this Psalm actually
changes the word "stone" into the word "son" (which is changed by one letter
in Hebrew--I don't remember the Aramaic.  [Help, Jack Kilmon!])
Consequently, some of his hearers may have understood him to say "the SON
that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone".

My information on the Targums, etc. comes from Craig A. Evans' excellent
survey titled "Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation" from
Hendrickson publishers, 1992(?)

I hope my "on the fly" recollections are accurate...

Enough for now!

Thanks for reading this far.

Regards,

Dennis Sullivan  (Friend of the Jerusalem School)

Unsubscribe