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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mk 3:29a = Mt 12:31b, or = Mt 12:32b?

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    ... David, Not quite sure what you mean by these stages. Let me assume you are referring to the meaning of Son of Man in Mt 12:32 as contrasted with the
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      David Mealand wrote:


      > Interesting.
      >
      > So do you think that Matthew (at stage 3b) used
      > tou 'uiou tou anqrwpou in the same way as
      > stage 1 of the tradition used barnasha?

      David,

      Not quite sure what you mean by these stages. Let me assume you are
      referring to the meaning of 'Son of Man' in Mt 12:32 as contrasted with the
      meaning of some much earlier Aramaic context (such as the logia?!). If so,
      then I don't understand the relevance of the question. If the whole Beezebul
      controversy (Mt 12:22-32) is basically triple tradition, then on any
      understanding of direct textual influence (e.g. Mark --> Matt --> Luke), it
      is only in the Greek where a development of meaning can occur.

      My initial reaction is that there is no significant development in the use
      of 'Son of Man' between its use in Mark and its use in Matthew, and Mt 12:32
      seems to me to be part of a Matthean expansion of a Markan text.

      However, on my radical version of the 3ST, Matthew has translated several
      occurrences of 'Son of Man' directly from the Aramaic logia, and I suppose
      it is possible that some of these may have influenced Matthew's
      understanding of the phrase in the Triple Tradition material.

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html




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