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

Re: Matthew in Papias [was Re: [Synoptic-L] On Q]

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic In Response To: Leonard On: Hebrew OT in Matthew From: Bruce I had perhaps too hastily referred to some OT references in Mt which, unlike the
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      In Response To: Leonard
      On: Hebrew OT in Matthew
      From: Bruce

      I had perhaps too hastily referred to some OT references in Mt which, unlike
      the others, seem to be based, not on the Septuagint, as is usual with Mt,
      but on a Hebrew original.

      LEONARD: “[E]xcept ten or so”. I read “ten or so” as a fairly large number
      of OT citations in Matthew best to be understood as related to a Hebrew
      text. I don’t remember having seen the number put that high. Ten texts would
      have the capacity
      to govern quite a large chunk of Matthew, if not its entire basic structure.
      I would love to see greater detail on which texts these are supposed to be.

      BRUCE: Bacon, Studies in Matthew (1930), Appended Note V: Scripture
      Quotations in S (p470),

      "On the other hand, the ten per cent traceable with greater or less
      probability, directly or indirectly to the Hebrew text call for very careful
      study. Allen enumeraties them as the following: [1:22f], 2:5, 2:6, 2:15,
      2:17f, 2:23, 4:14-16, 8:17, 13:35, 21:4f, 27:9. He makes the following
      observartions concerning the group: (1) Five of them, viz 4:14-16, 8:17,
      12:17-21, 13:35, 21:4f, seem to have been inserted into or appended to a
      section of Mk by the editor. (2) Six of them, viz [1:23], 2:6, 2:15, 2:176f,
      2:23, 27:9 might seem to be an integral part of the narrative in which they
      stand. (3) One of them, 2:23, cannot be verified. (4) All of them are
      introduced by a striking formula."

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      BRUCE wrote, citing Bacon: “On the other hand, the ten per cent traceable with greater or less probability, directly or indirectly to the Hebrew text call
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 4, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        BRUCE wrote, citing Bacon:

        “On the other hand, the ten per cent traceable with greater or less
        probability, directly or indirectly to the Hebrew text call for very
        careful
        study. Allen enumeraties them as the following: [1:22f], 2:5, 2:6,
        2:15,
        2:17f, 2:23, 4:14-16, 8:17, 13:35, 21:4f, 27:9. He makes the following
        observartions concerning the group: (1) Five of them, viz 4:14-16,
        8:17,
        12:17-21, 13:35, 21:4f, seem to have been inserted into or appended to
        a
        section of Mk by the editor. (2) Six of them, viz [1:23], 2:6, 2:15,
        2:176f,
        2:23, 27:9 might seem to be an integral part of the narrative in which
        they
        stand. (3) One of them, 2:23, cannot be verified. (4) All of them are
        introduced by a striking formula."

        LEONARD
        Thanks for this, Bruce. The juxtaposition of numbers (1) and (2) above
        is what I find most intriguing. The categories are distinguished by
        Bacon in virtue of the theory of Markan priority, but if you actually
        examine the citations and the material they surround, without reference
        to this theory, the two sets of Matthean materials are quite
        indistinguishable. Since the relationship between OT citation and
        gospel material is so extremely similar in the two cases, the
        phenomenon is best explained, it seems to me, on the hypothesis that
        Matthew is freely writing in both sets of texts, the gospel material
        being based on the OT citations, in illustration of their “fulfillment”
        in Jesus.

        Leonard Maluf
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic In Response To: Leonard On: Hebrew OT in Matthew From: Bruce In response to a question, I had provided the eleven Allen-Bacon passages where the
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 4, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Leonard
          On: Hebrew OT in Matthew
          From: Bruce

          In response to a question, I had provided the eleven Allen-Bacon passages
          where the OT cited is closer to the Hebrew than to the Septuagint, all other
          Matthew OT citations being routinely Septuagintal. I had also quoted part of
          Bacon's comment, that seemed to make a difference between two subgroups:
          five appended to Markan passages, and six integral in original Matthew
          passages. The latter group were almost entirely (five out of the six) from
          the Birth Narrative, which of course has no parallel in Mark. To this we
          had:

          LEONARD: The categories are distinguished by Bacon in virtue of the theory
          of Markan priority, but if you actually examine the citations and the
          material they surround, without reference to this theory, the two sets of
          Matthean materials are quite indistinguishable. Since the relationship
          between OT citation and gospel material is so extremely similar in the two
          cases, the phenomenon is best explained, it seems to me, on the hypothesis
          that Matthew is freely writing in both sets of texts, the gospel material
          being based on the OT citations, in illustration of their “fulfillment” in
          Jesus.

          BRUCE: Maybe. It would be interesting (or so it seems to me) to take just
          these eleven passages and their contexts, nothing else, and put them on the
          table all by themselves, and see if inspection de novo would separate them
          into the two Allen-Bacon groups, or (as Leonard finds) not. There is also
          the larger question of whether these eleven as a group function differently
          (apart from their more Semitic character) from other OT citations in Mt.

          Not to bore the Synoptic regulars, I will explore these questions elsewhere.
          Meanwhile, if someone has worked out the answer, or knows where it is in a
          book, Leonard and I would appreciate hearing about it.

          Whether this set of passages bears on Markan priority no one knows, but I
          always have to laugh at the spectacle presented by one of them, namely the
          animal on which Jesus rides into Jerusalem. Mark makes it one. Matthew has
          Jesus arrange for two animals, both an ass and a colt, in literal obedience
          to a bit of parallelism in the Hebrew original. Had Jesus actually been
          capable of simultaneously bestriding two animals in this way, he could have
          commanded princely sums on the rodeo circuit, and would not have been
          reduced to the unremunerative and dangerous life choices which he in fact
          made. I can only take the Matthean picture as an absurdly literal reading of
          the Hebrew. So yes, the author of these passages knew where to find Hebrew,
          but evidently he did not know, in any very experienced way, what to do with
          it when he found it.

          Of course, there is the Matthean tendency to have two of anything, where
          Mark in parallel passages has only one: one blind man vs two, etc. If this
          tendency is general in Matthew, the ass/colt instance being merely the most
          ridiculous, then we probably in fact have evidence of a Matthean preference
          acting on material which Mark preserves in its prior state. Whether this
          means that Matthew is secondary to Mark, or secondary to something which in
          these places is identical to Mark, well, take your pick.

          I have expounded this Two in Matthew theme (if memory serves) some time ago,
          whether on this list or another I can't guarantee at this point, though
          fishing in the archive circa 23 Jan 2009 might turn up something.

          That piece, wherever it first emerged, probably has a future; at any rate,
          it is presently scheduled for v3 of the journal for which the TOC of v1 is
          available here:

          http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/wsp1/index.html

          That being the case, I would of course appreciate criticisms of my 23 Jan
          2009 note, if in fact it exists, and if anyone cares to take the time.
          Thanks in advance,

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts
        • grig035
          I may be badly behind on this, but I d like very much to know if there s any consistency that s been tested as to the Septuagint or the Hebrew being cited in
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 5, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            I may be badly behind on this, but I'd like very much to know if there's
            any consistency that's been tested as to the Septuagint or the Hebrew
            being cited in the Q passages. Or are those all over the map?

            Please?

            Many thanks,

            Geoffrey Riggs

            ============================



            --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:
            >
            > To: Synoptic
            > In Response To: Leonard
            > On: Hebrew OT in Matthew
            > From: Bruce
            >
            > In response to a question, I had provided the eleven Allen-Bacon
            passages
            > where the OT cited is closer to the Hebrew than to the Septuagint, all
            other
            > Matthew OT citations being routinely Septuagintal. I had also quoted
            part of
            > Bacon's comment, that seemed to make a difference between two
            subgroups:
            > five appended to Markan passages, and six integral in original Matthew
            > passages. The latter group were almost entirely (five out of the six)
            from
            > the Birth Narrative, which of course has no parallel in Mark. To this
            we
            > had:
            >
            > LEONARD: The categories are distinguished by Bacon in virtue of the
            theory
            > of Markan priority, but if you actually examine the citations and the
            > material they surround, without reference to this theory, the two sets
            of
            > Matthean materials are quite indistinguishable. Since the relationship
            > between OT citation and gospel material is so extremely similar in the
            two
            > cases, the phenomenon is best explained, it seems to me, on the
            hypothesis
            > that Matthew is freely writing in both sets of texts, the gospel
            material
            > being based on the OT citations, in illustration of their
            “fulfillment” in
            > Jesus.
            >
            > BRUCE: Maybe. It would be interesting (or so it seems to me) to take
            just
            > these eleven passages and their contexts, nothing else, and put them
            on the
            > table all by themselves, and see if inspection de novo would separate
            them
            > into the two Allen-Bacon groups, or (as Leonard finds) not. There is
            also
            > the larger question of whether these eleven as a group function
            differently
            > (apart from their more Semitic character) from other OT citations in
            Mt.
            >
            > Not to bore the Synoptic regulars, I will explore these questions
            elsewhere.
            > Meanwhile, if someone has worked out the answer, or knows where it is
            in a
            > book, Leonard and I would appreciate hearing about it.
            >
            > Whether this set of passages bears on Markan priority no one knows,
            but I
            > always have to laugh at the spectacle presented by one of them, namely
            the
            > animal on which Jesus rides into Jerusalem. Mark makes it one. Matthew
            has
            > Jesus arrange for two animals, both an ass and a colt, in literal
            obedience
            > to a bit of parallelism in the Hebrew original. Had Jesus actually
            been
            > capable of simultaneously bestriding two animals in this way, he could
            have
            > commanded princely sums on the rodeo circuit, and would not have been
            > reduced to the unremunerative and dangerous life choices which he in
            fact
            > made. I can only take the Matthean picture as an absurdly literal
            reading of
            > the Hebrew. So yes, the author of these passages knew where to find
            Hebrew,
            > but evidently he did not know, in any very experienced way, what to do
            with
            > it when he found it.
            >
            > Of course, there is the Matthean tendency to have two of anything,
            where
            > Mark in parallel passages has only one: one blind man vs two, etc. If
            this
            > tendency is general in Matthew, the ass/colt instance being merely the
            most
            > ridiculous, then we probably in fact have evidence of a Matthean
            preference
            > acting on material which Mark preserves in its prior state. Whether
            this
            > means that Matthew is secondary to Mark, or secondary to something
            which in
            > these places is identical to Mark, well, take your pick.
            >
            > I have expounded this Two in Matthew theme (if memory serves) some
            time ago,
            > whether on this list or another I can't guarantee at this point,
            though
            > fishing in the archive circa 23 Jan 2009 might turn up something.
            >
            > That piece, wherever it first emerged, probably has a future; at any
            rate,
            > it is presently scheduled for v3 of the journal for which the TOC of
            v1 is
            > available here:
            >
            > http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/wsp1/index.html
            >
            > That being the case, I would of course appreciate criticisms of my 23
            Jan
            > 2009 note, if in fact it exists, and if anyone cares to take the time.
            > Thanks in advance,
            >
            > Bruce
            >
            > E Bruce Brooks
            > Warring States Project
            > University of Massachusetts
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.