Justin's Harmony? (was RE: The Thomas/Q Hypothesis)
- Steve asked:
> Do people really think that Justin is quoting from a Gospel HarmonyIt is a disputed question. Some think that the harmonisations occur
> of Matthew and Luke? That seems awfully unlikely. When was Justin
> writing, 150? So you not only already have Mt and Lk widely
> circulated but you have a PREFERENCE for some third unknown thing
> Justin's using? Isn't Justin quoting from memory the more likely
> explanation? I don't know... just asking.
because he is simply quoting from memory, interacting with oral
traditions etc. but there is a substantial body of opinion that
thinks he is dependent on a now-lost pre-Tatianic harmony. Koester
himself tends towards this view, e.g.:
"The hypothesis I am proposing here is that Justin (or someone in his
"school") continues the literary activity that is most clearly
evident in Matthew. Justin wants to create again the ONE Gospel, now
combining Matthew and Luke, strengthening at the same time the close
bond between prophecy and fulfillment, and thus expanding the text of
his Gospel to achieve an even closer agreement than is evident in
Matthew" ("The text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century" in
W. L. Petersen (ed.), _Gospel Traditions in the Second Century:
Origins, Recensions, Text and Transmission_ (London & Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), pp. 19-37), p. 32.
Elsewhere Koester attempts to establish that "Justin is not just
doing this *ad hoc*, but is relying on a previously composed new
Gospel text" (ibid.).
Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham
Crosstalk Web Archive: http://www.findmail.com/list/crosstalk
- On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 19:54:04 +0900, anneq@... writes:
>Plainly it does. However, we must take the following census of
>I'm confused. So many of you have defended the idea of an oral tradition
>'because of illiteracy'. Yet Luke 4:16-17 says:
>"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the
>synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read:
>and there was given to him the book ofthe prophet Isaiah. He opened the
>book and found the place where it was written."
>Doesn't this assume that Jesus could read?
synagogues with caution. Like the record of the united kingdom
under David and Solomon, archaeology doesn't confirm it.
However, every time I try to find out how literate were the people
of Egypt whose temples all had schools connected to them, the results
on the ground ONLY find support in the village of the Tomb Workers
at Deir el Medina at Western Thebes and the graffiti found on
some pyramid stones at Giza and at the quarries up and down the Nile.
As has just been noted in the papers about Peking Man using fire, we
have not read carefully the relics in many cases. As a consequence.
until we do more work on settlements, we can't say if the Ancients
were more literate than Elizabethan English people.
>According to "The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus" by Bernard J. Lee, S. M.As noted above, better be sure the evidence on the ground is not
>page 122, the synagogues usually had schools attached to them--pre-70 ACE
>Jerusalem had 480 synagogues each of which had both a 'house of reading'
>(bet sefer) and a 'house of learning' (bet talmud). In the first century
>ACE the majority of Jewish boys receive a formal education in these
>schools. Lee goes on to say that most male children in Palestine in Jesus'
>time attend school, even those from poor families starting at the age of five.
>In this case wouldn't many people have had the ability to write down what
>they remembered Jesus saying? Why should (at least the early Jewish
>Christians) have to rely on an oral tradition?
wishful thinking or driven by a desire to prove a point.