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

Matthew > GThos

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: GThomas Cc: GPG On: Matthew GThos From: Bruce In JBL v131 #4 (2012) John P Meier concludes that the directionality in the Parable of the Wheat and Tares
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      To: GThomas
      Cc: GPG
      On: Matthew > GThos
      From: Bruce

      In JBL v131 #4 (2012) John P Meier concludes that the directionality in the
      Parable of the Wheat and Tares is Mt 13:24f > GThos 57. Several recent
      publications give what for me are equally convincing accounts of several
      passages in which the directionality is Lk > gThos. Suppose we accept the
      general tendency of these results, and see what happens.

      Then leaving aside for purposes of this experiment the possibility that
      gThos is accretional, we have in effect two possible scenarios for gThos:
      (1) gThos is a pre-Mt/Lk text which has later suffered extension and
      augmentation from Mt/Lk, or (2) it is a post-Mt/Lk text which draws key
      material from those Gospels and augments it with other material. If we wish
      to discriminate between these two, how do we proceed?

      One way would be to eliminate from gThos everything with a Mt/Lk parallel,
      and then examine the nature and (if any) the organization of the rest. If
      the pure-Th residue makes some kind of sense on its own, then Option 1 seems
      to be indicated. If not, then we might want to further investigate Option 2.

      Has anyone done this? If so, I would appreciate a reference, or a summary of
      unpublished results.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst

      I might add that Option 1 is not a category with no examples. I earlier
      presented at SBL a view of the Didache which roughly fits that category;
      that finding will be included in the forthcoming collection of essays edited
      by Draper and Jefford. According to that view, the Matthean touches in
      Didache are later adjustments to a text which has its beginnings in the
      Markan period of early Christianity. That the Synoptic parts of the Two Ways
      portion of the Didache are secondary is supported by the fact that they do
      not appear in the version of the Two Ways which at some point was appended
      to the Epistle of Barnabas. Matthew, as Massaux has massively shown, was the
      most influential Christian text of the second half of the 1c. That other
      Christian productions (including, in my view, Luke B) felt the need to take
      some account of it, or even to annex parts of it to their own productions,
      seems not at all surprising.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.