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 In response to a question, I had provided the eleven Allen-Bacon passages where the
    Message 1 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 2 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.