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

An Aramaic cat among the pigeons

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Maurice Casey liberated a much-needed cat among the synoptic pigeons when he set out detailed evidence that an Aramaic source lay behind the Woes ( An
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 16, 2009
      Maurice Casey liberated a much-needed cat among the synoptic pigeons when he
      set out detailed evidence that an Aramaic source lay behind the 'Woes' ("An
      Aramaic Approach to Q", pp. 64-104). It is to be hoped that advocates of the
      Two-Source Theory will take it as a serious challenge to their posited Greek
      Q.

      This said, there are some aspects of Casey's method which could be improved.
      Concentrating on the details of one or two aphorisms (Mt 12:30 // Lk 11:23
      is dealt with later in the book) among many means that some of the original
      context is lost. Thus for example "from town to town" is dismissed as a
      Matthean elaboration, whereas I have found it to have a clear parallel
      elsewhere in the sayings (saying B7 // saying D7 in my reconstruction on the
      Web page cited below).

      Also it seems to me that he (like others) is too ready to use the opponents'
      terminology. His phrase "Q material" leads almost predictably to a
      requirement for "at least two layers of Q" (p.103) when observing that some
      of the other material is verbally identical in Matthew and Luke. Had he
      referred to the 'Double Tradition' instead of 'Q', he might have proposed
      straightaway a division in the origin of the Double Tradition material
      rather than jumping to a conclusion about layers in a document he doesn't
      really believe in (the latter revealed on p.189).

      Also two of the woes (Mt 23:4 // Lk 11:46 and Mt 23:13 // Lk 11:52) were
      omitted. It would be nice to hear his reason for these omissions.

      Finally, Casey appears to have missed the majestic poetry of the original
      woes. I invite readers to compare my English-language reconstruction of
      saying D7 on the Web page cited below (together with the corresponding notes
      on the following page), with Casey's reconstruction on p. 65 of his book. It
      is as if Casey's cat is in a high-definition black-and-white photograph,
      whereas mine is in a low-definition colour photograph. Ah well. Perhaps
      someday we'll be treated to a high-definition colour photograph of this cat.
      :-)

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_sQet.html
    • David Mealand
      Casey s book on Q does indeed offer a number of very valuable insights into the possible development of the tradition prior to its translation into Greek. It
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 26, 2009
        Casey's book on Q does indeed offer a
        number of very valuable insights into
        the possible development of the tradition
        prior to its translation into Greek.
        It does this not least in illuminating more clearly
        the nature of the issues in some of
        the controversies recorded in the
        Synoptic tradition.

        It makes a good case
        that there is a prophetic protest
        against the extension of purity requirements
        where these conflict with other weightier
        demands. It is not so clear that this
        _all_ took place at the first rather than
        the second stage of the tradition.

        Were there no Aramaic
        speaking disciples who ever clarified or
        amplified this criticism in disputes with
        those who held to the extended purity rules?
        Was it only the evangelists who altered
        the traditions, and not those who transmitted
        the tradition between the first and the third stages?
        Were there not some disciples who took a fiercer
        line than their master when confronted by opposition?
        (e.g. Lk 9.54)

        C seems to assign almost all of the recovered
        Aramaic stratum to the Sitz im Leben of Jesus,
        but it is not clear that controversies which
        fit the period of around +29 to +33 did not also
        continue (in Aramaic) through the next
        twenty or thirty years. After all the
        issues of preservation of identity and of
        hostility to Gentile domination were very
        powerful factors, and were accentuated after
        the death of Herod Agrippa.

        David M.

        ---------
        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


        --
        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.