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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Jan 5, 2011
      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.