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

Matthew and Mark

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic On: Matthew and Mark From: Bruce With its 2009 PB publication by SBL, Delbert Burkett s 2004 study Rethinking the Gospel Sources v2: The Unity
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 7, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      On: Matthew and Mark
      From: Bruce

      With its 2009 PB publication by SBL, Delbert Burkett's 2004 study
      "Rethinking the Gospel Sources v2: The Unity and Plurality of Q" becomes
      available to ordinary human beings. On behalf of same, I had a look at the
      refutation of anti-Q arguments in Chapter 1. It seemed to me just a teensy
      bit cursory. M Goulder is dismissed with the remark that other people have
      dealt therewith. M Goodacre's arguments are at least listed. Whether they
      are adequately countered is a question which M Goodacre himself may care to
      address.

      The McNicol et al work Luke's Use of Matthew (1996) is also treated
      dismissively, with the remark that it proves that Luke could have used
      Matthew, but not that he did. To have established even that much, in the
      face of Streeter's famous sneer, must count as a major result. Or so it
      looks from here.

      But anyway, what occurred to me on overviewing this old story was: We now
      have (at least) two detailed accounts of how Luke used, or plausibly could
      have used, Matthew. Has anybody done the same, in similar detail, for
      Matthew's use of Mark?

      Any references appreciated.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst

      [A propos, anyone who wants a further discount on the not very high SBL PB
      list price of Burkett v2 may obtain same by purchasing via the Warring
      States Bookshop, one click away at http://www.umass.edu/wsp. Burkett, or any
      other book or raucous DVD you order once you enter Amazon via that portal,
      will slightly benefit current philological research; the cost to you is not
      increased]
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      But anyway, what occurred to me on overviewing this old story was: We now have (at least) two detailed accounts of how Luke used, or plausibly could have used,
      Message 2 of 7 , Aug 8, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        But anyway, what occurred to me on overviewing this old story was: We now
        have (at least) two detailed accounts of how Luke used, or plausibly could
        have used, Matthew. Has anybody done the same, in similar detail, for
        Matthew's use of Mark?

        Perhaps not, but Mark's use of Matthew has been dealt with in?some detail by the same McNicol group you alluded to. I don't know if that helps any. One Gospel from Two: Mark's Use of Matthew and Luke, by David B. Peabody, with Lamar Cope and Allan J. NcNicol.

        Leonard Maluf
        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
        Weston, MA



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        I just opened the cited book on Mark s use of Matthew and found (p. 15) the word pericopae, as a plural of pericope. Is this standard, and is it correct? I
        Message 3 of 7 , Aug 8, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I just opened the cited book on Mark's use of Matthew and found (p. 15) the word pericopae, as a plural of pericope. Is this standard, and is it correct? I find it jarring, because it seems to presuppose that the singular is pericopa, a first declension Latin derivative. Should it not be pericopai? Is there an accepted standard plural form for pericope?

          Leonard Maluf
          Blessed John XXIII National?Seminary
          Weston, MA


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the plural of pericope is either pericopes or pericopae. I recall reading both forms in the scholarship.
          Message 4 of 7 , Aug 8, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            On Aug 8, 2009 7:59 AM, Maluflen@... wrote:
            >I just opened the cited book on Mark's use of Matthew and
            >found (p. 15) the word pericopae, as a plural of pericope. Is
            >this standard, and is it correct? I find it jarring, because it
            >seems to presuppose that the singular is pericopa, a first
            >declension Latin derivative. Should it not be pericopai? Is
            >there an accepted standard plural form for pericope?

            According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the plural of
            "pericope" is either "pericopes" or "pericopae." I recall
            reading both forms in the scholarship. As for the spelling
            of the latter form, it appears to me that "pericopae" is a
            Latinized transliteration of the Greek plural περικοπαι
            PERIKOPAE. Lewis and Short state that the Greek word
            was borrowed into Latin as PERICOPE (gen. PERICOPES),
            citing Jerome, In Joel 2, but does not give the plural form.

            Stephen Carlson

            --
            Stephen C. Carlson
            Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
            Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
          • fathchuck@aol.com
            My understanding is that pericopae is the proper Latin plural. Rev. Charles Schwartz, administrator/pastor St. Dorothea Eatontown, NJ [Non-text portions of
            Message 5 of 7 , Aug 8, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              My understanding is that pericopae is the proper Latin plural.




              Rev. Charles Schwartz, administrator/pastor
              St. Dorothea
              Eatontown, NJ


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Larry Swain
                ... According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the plural of pericope is either pericopes or pericopae. I recall reading both forms in the
              Message 6 of 7 , Aug 8, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                 

                On Aug 8, 2009 7:59 AM, Maluflen@... wrote:
                >I just opened the cited book on Mark's use of Matthew and
                >found (p. 15) the word pericopae, as a plural of pericope. Is
                >this standard, and is it correct? I find it jarring, because it
                >seems to presuppose that the singular is pericopa, a first
                >declension Latin derivative. Should it not be pericopai? Is
                >there an accepted standard plural form for pericope?

                According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the plural of
                "pericope" is either "pericopes" or "pericopae." I recall
                reading both forms in the scholarship. As for the spelling
                of the latter form, it appears to me that "pericopae" is a
                Latinized transliteration of the Greek plural περικοπαι
                PERIKOPAE. Lewis and Short state that the Greek word
                was borrowed into Latin as PERICOPE (gen. PERICOPES),
                citing Jerome, In Joel 2, but does not give the plural form.

                Stephen Carlson

                Interestingly, Latin borrowed pericope into the 3rd declension (as with
                most Greek nouns borrowed into Latin), making the plural pericopes in
                Latin.  As Stephen says, a Latin transliteration of the Greek first
                declension perikoph, perikopai would give the plural form pericopae.  

                Larry Swain

                Independent Scholar

                Chicago, IL

                --
                _______________________________________________
                Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
                Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

                Powered by Outblaze


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • E Bruce Brooks
                To: Synoptic In Response To: Leonard On: Study of Matthew s Use of Mark From: Bruce Thanks, Leonard, I did know of that book. I tend to read it in reverse
                Message 7 of 7 , Aug 8, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  To: Synoptic
                  In Response To: Leonard
                  On: Study of Matthew's Use of Mark
                  From: Bruce

                  Thanks, Leonard, I did know of that book. I tend to read it in reverse gear,
                  as you might have expected, but even that is useful.

                  Does anybody else know of something? If not, I will have to write one
                  myself, and I already have a lot to do.

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks
                  Warring States Project
                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.