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

Re: [XTalk] Luke's knowledge of Matthew

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    Dear Mahlon, Thanks for your kind response. The Festschrift is in the series Supplements to N.T. vol XXIV, Brill 1970. It should not be too difficult. In 1970
    Message 1 of 21 , Jan 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mahlon,
      Thanks for your kind response. The Festschrift is in the series Supplements to
      N.T. vol XXIV, Brill 1970. It should not be too difficult. In 1970 most
      theological seminaries still had funds to subscribe to Novum Testamentum.
      Unfortunately, I donot have the article on a floppy - it was written in the
      pre-cumputer age. In the article the name Nathanael - conspicuously absent in the
      Synoptics - is Hebrew for 'God has given'. Its Aramaic parallel is Matthew:
      mattai, mattaia - 'gift of JHWH'
      John 1,45 offers a fair characterization of the Gospel of Matthew, "We have found
      him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the
      son of Joseph." In Mt Jesus is portyrayed as the new Moses,; the autjhor
      repeatedly introduces his quotations from Tenakh with the formula, "This was to
      fulfill what JHWH has spoken by the prophets". Mt's concern is to make clear why
      trhe Messiah came from Nazareth. Finally, Matthew's genealogy and the opening
      chapters focus on Joseph, while Luke centers on Mary etc etc. Similarly I argue
      that in 1,040-42 may well refer to Mark, although this is by no means obvious. The
      reading 'proton' in vs 41 probablky refers to Peter. In the following three
      chapters 2- 4, Jesus itinerary follows the order of Acts 1,8, as Miss A. Guilding
      observed : Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, end of the earth, if the healing of the
      'royal official' official's son indeed refers to the Roman centurion. (Normal
      Greek doesnot have a word for Emperor. basileus could mean king or emperor;
      kaisar was word borrowed from the Latin, as van Unnik made clear long ago. Good
      luck, in finding the article. No one has responded to the article as yet, except
      Kuemmel, who was addicted to Kittel's Woerterbuch.

      your Karel

      "Mahlon H. Smith" wrote:

      > Dear Karel:
      > I'm flattered by your request for my response to your 1970 article on the
      > structure of John 1-4 & am a bit embarassed to admit that I don't recall
      > having read it. In 1970 I was preoccupied with founding the department of
      > Religion at Rutgers & completing my own dissertation in medieval studies, so
      > I was not then in a position to be keeping abreast of new publications in
      > Johannine studies.
      > I can try to locate a copy of the Stevenster Festschrift at a nearby
      > library, but I am not sanguine on finding it. My experience with U.S.
      > libraries is that their holdings in Festschriften are spotty at best & the
      > price of Brill publications often serves as a deterent to their acquisition,
      > unless specifically requested by a faculty member at that institution. If
      > you can fax me a copy of your article (732-932-1271) or send it as an email
      > attachment (mahsmith@...) to my office it will save me the time
      > & effort of tracking it down.
      > I should have been more precise in my previous post when I claimed to have
      > "critiqued the works of all major Johannine scholars of the 20th c." I meant
      > to say that I had read with a critical mind the *major works* (i.e.,
      > commentaries, monographs) by leading scholars that made a significant impact
      > on the debate & direction of 20th c. Johannine studies, particularly
      > American academic scholarship (which includes European scholars whose voices
      > have influenced debate on this side of the globe). I did not mean to leave
      > the impression that I had read every article (or even minor monograph) on 4G
      > that was published in any language or any venue anywhere in the world. My
      > reading of journals & occsional articles in collections has been necessarily
      > more selective & I know that many have escaped my notice. So I cannot
      > pretend comprehensiveness in reviewing every thesis on 4g that has been
      > floated over the past century. But I am more than willing to consider yours,
      > now that you have called it to my attention.
      > Shalom!
      > Mahlon
      > P.S. As for your self-deprecating characterization of your article as
      > "dated" & your allegiance to Neyrinck's claim that John knew the synoptics
      > as "old fashioned": that is remains to be seen. Having studied for a year
      > under Neyrinck I am well acquainted with his thorough scholarship & powers
      > of critical reasoning. So I don't lightly dismiss his arguments or those of
      > his followers without giving them due review.
      > Mahlon H. Smith
      > Department of Religion
      > Rutgers University
      > New Brunswick NJ 08901
      > http://religion.rutgers.edu/profiles/mh_smith.html
      > Synoptic Gospels Primer
      > http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/
      > Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
      > http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/
      > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
      > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.