Re: Fw: [Synoptic-L] one step at a time, Lk 9.44
- On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:37:43 -0700 Paul G Buckley <uneaq@...>
> Belated reply to Randall Buth,
> Have you considered
> what follows Luke 9:44? "Let these sayings sink down into your ears:
> for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.
> 9:45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid
> from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask Him
> that saying."
> Immediately this seems to start a power struggle amongst
> them. "Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should
> be the greatest."
> Are they arguing about the successor to Jesus? If He is
> delivered into the hands of men, who gets to be His replacement?
> As you point out Exodus 17:4 is the only other place
> this particular phrase, "let these sayings sink down into your
> ears," is used. It is interesting Moses is talking to his
> successor Joshua.
> Paul Buckley <uneaq@ juno.com>
> No affiliation
> From: Randall Buth <ButhFam@...>
> To: synoptic list <Synoptic-L@...>
> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:37:49 -0500
> Subject: [Synoptic-L] one step at a time, Lk 9.44
> Message-ID: <200303151337_MC3-1-2F6E-590D@...>
> shavua` tov.
> I queried the Aramaic source(s) hypothesis last week for two
> reasons. One,
> it overlooks primary data, and Two, it is important for synoptic
> The phrase 'put these words in your ears' was meant to
> illustrate this.
> Luke 9.44
> QESQE UMEIS EIS TA WTA UMWN TOUS LOGOUS TOUTOUS
> This comes at the second passion prediction in triple tradition.
> Luke follows with the shortest snyoptic account:
> 'SoM is about to be delivered to the hands of men'.
> Neither Mt nor Mk have a parallel to 'put these words in your
> Listen to Anchor Bible: "The Lucan formula may be an echo of Exod
> 17.14, 'put it in the ears of Joshua' (wesim be'ozne Yehoshua`),
> LXX translates it rather DOS EIS TA WTA IHSOI, whereas Luke
> writes QESQE, 'put, store.' "
> It sounds reasonable until one realizes what this hides, Luke's
> "put in the ears" is word for word the closest equivalent to the
> The explanation appears to suggest the following:
> Luke decided to add something biblical to Jesus' words,
> he remembered a rare item from the LXX,
> he then misquoted it,
> and accidently produced a pure Hebrew calque.
> Is this possible? Yes.
> But is it probable?
> The "problem" for many synoptic theories is that this phrase
> be coming from Matthew, nor from Mark, and not from the LXX,
> yet it shows up in Luke.
> Couple that observation with the "short" citation form and a case
> can be
> made, and has been made, that Luke reflects an independent
> of quality material.
> Now, if we knew that there were groups in the first century using
> Hebrew, and we do; and if we have evidence that Mark's sources
> Luke's sources may include something that goes back to Hebrew,
> we do, then Semitisms may help unravel relationships in many
> One step at a time.
> Randall Buth
> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...