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

Re: [ematthew] Matthew's redactional activity

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... If I were you, I would check out (1) the commentary on Matthew by Schweizer. S is intent to do redaction critical study of the Gospel; and (2) the new
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian Tucker wrote:

      > ... I am interested in determining redactional activity in
      > Matthew 5:39-41 or Matthew 6:9-15 so that I may compare the dependence
      > or
      > independence of the Didache with Matthew. It appears these two
      > passages have
      > the most potential for dependence. Before I can do that, however, I
      > need to
      > determine if there is any clear evidence for redactional activity
      > exclusive
      > to Matthew that would indicate dependence by the author(s) of the
      > Didache.

      If I were you, I would check out (1) the commentary on Matthew by
      Schweizer. S is intent to do redaction critical study of the Gospel; and
      (2) the new commentary in the Hermenia series on the Didache.

      Of course, H.D. Betz's commentary on the Sermon on the Mount contains
      discussions of Matthew's redaction of the LP, as does Hagner's on
      Matthew.

      > Well since I have gone this far, I might as well mention some more. Is
      >
      > Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,
      > forever. Amen." Redactional? Textual grounds argue not, however
      > Didache 8:2
      > includes, "For yours is the power and glory forever." (9:4 and 10:5)

      To my mind, the doxology is NOT Matthean redaction. But the fact that it
      not original to Matthew does not mean that the Didache is not dependent
      on GMatt, or at least the GMatt version of the LP. The trend to add a
      doxology to Matt. 6:13 -- which the text witnesses show is NOT
      consistent in form or wording -- **begins** with the Didache and
      continues from there.

      Yours,

      Jeffrey


      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Floor 1
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
      jgibson000@...



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • L. J. Swain
      Brian, I m curious and wonder whether you would outline your conclusions, or is too soon? Larry Swain
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Brian,

        I'm curious and wonder whether you would outline your conclusions, or is
        too soon?

        Larry Swain

        Brian Tucker wrote:
        >
        > Jeffrey wrote:
        >
        > > So that we know what it is you are looking for, or are seeking
        > confirmation of, what do you identify as Matthew's redactional activity in
        > 3:15?>
        >
        > Hi, Jeffrey thanks for the question. I don't have all my resources infront
        > of me, however, here is some of my thoughts.
        >
        > 1. Here is a quote from Meier concerning the baptism, "For the later
        > evangelists, though, the baptism was such an embarrassment that even the
        > theophany had to be supplemented by other "safety devices." In Matthew, the
        > theophany after the baptism is balanced by a disclaimer before the baptism
        > (Matt 3:14-15)...Why should Jesus come to him to be baptized instead?
        > Replying with perfect Matthean vocabulary, Jesus insists that John permit
        > APHES this strange inversion of roles for the time being ARTI because in
        > this way John and Jesus will join in the eschatological fulfillment of God's
        > plan of salvation." (The Marginal Jew II, 102)
        >
        > 2. The statement of Jesus concerning the fulfillment of all righteousness.
        > Not in the parallels: Mk. 1:9-11; Lk 3:21,22; Jn 1:31-34. Matthew's use of
        > DIKAIOSUNH is striking throughout the Gospel.
        >
        > 3. Raymond Brown points out that many would regard 3:15 as Matthean
        > redaction and suggests that Ignatius knew Mt in Smyrn 1.1. (Intro to NT, 216
        > fn. 101).
        >
        > 4. Meier also argues for other Matthew vocabulary and theology in Mt 3:14-15
        > in Law and History in Matthew's Gospel. (73-80).
        >
        > 5. Ignatius, "Our Lord...is truly of the family of David according to the
        > flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a
        > virgin, baptized by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him."
        > (Smyrn 1:1) The 'all righteousness might be fulfilled' is what appears to be
        > redactional.
        >
        > 6. Crossan writes, Ignatius is "dependent on Matthew since it uses
        > 'righteousness,' a redactional emphasis concerning John in both Matthew
        > 3:14-15 and 21:32." (The Historical Jesus, 234)
        >
        > I realize that this phrase has created numerous scholarly opinions, (Carson,
        > 107), however, I am interested in determining redactional activity in
        > Matthew 5:39-41 or Matthew 6:9-15 so that I may compare the dependence or
        > independence of the Didache with Matthew. It appears these two passages have
        > the most potential for dependence. Before I can do that, however, I need to
        > determine if there is any clear evidence for redactional activity exclusive
        > to Matthew that would indicate dependence by the author(s) of the Didache.
        > Well since I have gone this far, I might as well mention some more. Is
        > Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,
        > forever. Amen." Redactional? Textual grounds argue not, however Didache 8:2
        > includes, "For yours is the power and glory forever." (9:4 and 10:5)
        >
        > Brian Tucker
        > Riverview, MI
        > http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org
        > editor@...
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > ematthew-unsubscribe@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.