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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?

Expand Messages
  • David Mealand
    ... Matt. 1.21 // Luke 1.31 has a striking sequential agreement (TEX[Hi/ETAI DE hUION KAI KALESEIS TO ONOMA AUTOU IHSOUN). It s seven conjoined words in Greek
    Message 1 of 67 , Apr 1, 2011
      ------------Mark wrote recently --------
      Matt. 1.21 // Luke 1.31 has a striking sequential agreement
      AUTOU IHSOUN). It's seven conjoined words in Greek
      (including the singular KALESEIS which does not
      work in Luke's context).
      -----------------I reply-------------------
      But surely seven of these nine words are exactly those
      in the Greek of Isai 7.14 the only changes being DE in
      second position instead of initial KAI which is the regular
      change of connective made by any writer distressed by the
      Greek style of the prophets (or of Mark), plus of course the
      name Jesus instead of EMMANOUHL

      ----------------Mark wrote previously-------
      I would add with respect to ... number 13
      (Matt. 1.21 // Luke 1.31), that the singular KALESEIS in Luke is
      likely carried over from Matthew where it is more appropriate. Mary
      will not name Jesus in Luke; Luke makes a big deal about fathers
      being the ones who name children (Case Against Q, 56-7).

      ----------------I had it in mind to reply------------------------------
      But isn't the "you are to name him" from Isaiah 7.14 (Greek) along with
      the motif of the parthenos who is to conceive and to bear a son. And
      although Luke makes a big event of Zechariah naming John, it is not
      Joseph who features in the naming here in Luke, but the angel.
      "His name was called ..." (a Septuagintalism like Gen 3.20)
      or perhaps "with respect to his name he was called..."
      (accusative of respect with passive verb).
      Then "(the name) spoken by the angel....." (Lk 2.21).
      So Joseph is slipped into the shadows in the background, and
      the angel is foregrounded, and for Luke this naming is even more
      important than the previous one. Or have I missed something?

      Was Matthew the first to invoke Isai 7.14 (Greek)? How do
      we weigh the probability that Luke obtained this from Matthew
      against the probability that it had been in circulation perhaps
      as much as a decade or two before Matthew, and was known by
      Luke independently? (I am not arguing that the tradition
      in question needs to be earlier than say 55CE.)

      --------------Mark also responded to what I wrote earlier------
      > The mention of the names Mary and Joseph, Davidic descent, Herod,
      > and that Jesus brings salvation are all motifs more widely found
      > in texts such as those of Mark and Paul, well before Matthew and
      > Luke get going.

      I am not so sure about this. Mary does feature in Mark (6.3) but not in
      Paul. Joseph features in neither. Davidic descent is in Paul and Mark but
      Herod is not.
      -----------------------I reply--------
      I readily grant that Joseph's name doesn't appear earlier than
      Matthew and Luke. My point is that the other names are hardly
      Matthean inventions and could well have been available to Luke
      without his knowledge of Matthew - they are either in Mark or Paul
      or in the case of Herod (the wicked) are all too common knowledge.

      I would construct a sequence as a) one or more people attempt
      a genealogy to show Jesus as a descendant of David via Joseph
      b) others wish to modify this by invoking Isai.7.14 in Greek
      (parthenos instead of almah). This plus other material which
      is common knowledge to early followers of Jesus or people
      who lived in Judaea or Galilee accounts for a good proportion
      of the items that Matthew and Luke agree on in the infancy

      There is a good 40 years or more before Matthew for people
      to think about the implications of Davidic descent and how
      much they might (or might not) wish to modify claims about it.

      David M.

      David Mealand, University of Edinburgh

      The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
      Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
    • Chuck Jones
      Bob, Thanks for the follow up.  I did read the irony in the note backwards.  I hang around the group and usually only read.  I ve been amazed at the
      Message 67 of 67 , Apr 6, 2011
        Thanks for the follow up.  I did read the irony in the note backwards.  I hang around the group and usually only read.  I've been amazed at the conversation my post initiated.  I've made the comment before.  Weird but fun.

        --- On Tue, 4/5/11, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:

        From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
        Subject: Chuck Re: Hypothetical documents Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 4:57 PM


        At 12:09 PM 4/5/2011, Chuck Jones wrote:



        >Your post and the quote from Mark's post

        >underline how much our emotions are involved in

        >these discussions. Â It's hard to strive for

        >objectivity and root for a team at the same time.


        You're relatively new around here, aren't you?

        And perhaps you didn't notice my "wink". My mock

        horror at the idea of abandoning Q was intended

        as a sly reference to Mark's book, *The Case

        Against Q* (2002). If you haven't read it, you

        probably should. The most prominent emotion

        involved was a chuckle of joviality.

        Oh, BTW, welcome to Synoptic-L!

        Bob Schacht

        Northern Arizona University

        >--- On Tue, 4/5/11, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:


        >From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>

        >Subject: Hypothetical documents Re: [Synoptic-L]

        >Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?

        >To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

        >Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 12:20 PM



        > At 08:41 AM 4/5/2011, Mark Goodacre wrote:


        > >...Let me conclude with a provocative statement. If, as David suggests,

        > >the case is even-stephens, then I suggest that we prefer the case that

        > >dispenses with a hypothetical document.


        >What?!? B-b-but that would mean a world without Q! How can that be?!?!?




        >Bob Schacht

        >Northern Arizona University

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.