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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.