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

one big source? (wilson)

Expand Messages
  • yochanan bitan
    (brian wilson wrote) ... brian, it is not probable that one large source contained all the styles and themes that turn up in our three synoptic gospels. for
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 5 4:25 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      (brian wilson wrote)
      > The word "euthus", the historic present and the use of "palin"
      > could have been characteristic of the common source, these idioms
      > frequently being retained by Mark but usually edited out by Matthew or
      > Luke. The description of Jesus in his ministry being "upright" could
      > have been copied by Mark from the common source. And so on. And so on.

      brian,
      it is not probable that one large source contained all the styles and
      themes that turn up in our three synoptic gospels.

      for example, there is one place, with a couple of suggestive back ups,
      where matthew has 'tote', 4.1
      mark has 'kai euthys' 1.12
      and luke 'de' 4.1.

      [perhaps mt 9.6 tote, vs mk 2.8 euthys (2 verses earlier)
      also mt 12.38, tote, vs mk 8.10 evthys (1 verse earlier)]

      now "the source" couldn't have had all those conjunctions at the same point
      in the temptation story.
      the simple conclusion is that we are dealing with gospel writers' style in
      at least 2 out of three.

      [[of course, one might always claim that this is an accident where one
      synoptist outdid his source and added a sourcism, thus creating the
      synoptic incompatibility. but probability flows in the other direction. and
      given the thousands of conjunctions in each gospel even one overlap of a
      distinctive, relatively rare 40xx, 60xx conjunction is significant in
      suggesting that they are not both from the same source.]]

      [[i'll go out on a limb and hypothesize 'kai' for the temptation pericope
      source, though 'de' is a strong second probability. [incidently, both fit a
      hebraic source.]]]

      realistically, zero, one, but not more than one, of those idiosyncratic
      styles [tote vs. evthys] could have been from "the source". logically, they
      unravel into one probability:

      (a) if the source had a evthys style, then mark copied it and matthew only
      copied it where mark had it, in other contexts he used evthews. which
      suggests that he saw mark. which explains why occasionally marcan sentences
      are identical in matthew with only the addition of his own 'tote', or why a
      whole, additional, non-marcan sentence will have 'tote'. which proves that
      matthew's style was 'tote' and not the source's, leaving evthys for the
      source. (this is like induction proofs in math=, assume true then prove
      that a+1 is true too. however, here, it only proves that a source with an
      evthys' style could have produced our mark and matthew, not that the source
      had such a style.)

      (b) If the source had a 'tote' style, mark deleted every example of it as a
      narrative conjunction. meanwhile, mark added his kai evthys style, which
      shows up seven times in matthew, whoops. back to (a).
      [while there is no way to know or prove whether the source was
      'kai-evthysian' or mark was 'kai-evthysian', mark has the smoking gun.]

      a person's judgment of contemporary literature would reinforce the idea
      that euthys does not represent a source in mark. it's like finding a bullet
      in a corpse from a 47 calibre and mark with a 47 calibre weapon. (hey, yoo,
      the 470 was a famous calibre in its day in africa.) obviously, if one 47
      calibre was available, someone else could have had one. but it would be a
      foolish sheriff to let mark out free.
      also, if the source were 'kai-evthysian' one is surprised to find it
      nowhere else in matthew than where mark has it.

      now the above argument depends on 'tote' and 'kai-evthys' being
      distinctive, abnormal, idiosyncratic styles in greek. they are, they were.

      as for me and my house---
      you are looking at individual styles with the above conjunctions, not
      sources.

      erroso
      randall buth
    • Jim Deardorff
      ... Randall, A word of caution here -- It s an oversimplification to use the word him to refer to Matthew, when you are probably referring to AMt but
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 5 2:40 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        At 07:25 AM 3/5/99 -0500, yochanan bitan wrote:
        > have been copied by Mark from the common source. And so on. And so on.
        >
        >brian,
        >it is not probable that one large source contained all the styles and
        >themes that turn up in our three synoptic gospels.
        >
        >for example, there is one place, with a couple of suggestive back ups,
        >where matthew has 'tote', 4.1
        >mark has 'kai euthys' 1.12
        >and luke 'de' 4.1.
        >
        >[perhaps mt 9.6 tote, vs mk 2.8 euthys (2 verses earlier)
        >also mt 12.38, tote, vs mk 8.10 evthys (1 verse earlier)]
        >
        >now "the source" couldn't have had all those conjunctions at the same point
        >in the temptation story.
        >the simple conclusion is that we are dealing with gospel writers' style in
        >at least 2 out of three.
        >
        >[[of course, one might always claim that this is an accident where one
        >synoptist outdid his source and added a sourcism, thus creating the
        >synoptic incompatibility. but probability flows in the other direction. and
        >given the thousands of conjunctions in each gospel even one overlap of a
        >distinctive, relatively rare 40xx, 60xx conjunction is significant in
        >suggesting that they are not both from the same source.]]
        >
        >[[i'll go out on a limb and hypothesize 'kai' for the temptation pericope
        >source, though 'de' is a strong second probability. [incidently, both fit a
        >hebraic source.]]]
        >
        >realistically, zero, one, but not more than one, of those idiosyncratic
        >styles [tote vs. evthys] could have been from "the source". logically, they
        >unravel into one probability:
        >
        >(a) if the source had a evthys style, then mark copied it and matthew only
        >copied it where mark had it, in other contexts he used evthews. which
        >suggests that he saw mark. which explains why occasionally marcan sentences
        >are identical in matthew with only the addition of his own 'tote', or why a
        >whole, additional, non-marcan sentence will have 'tote'.

        Randall,

        A word of caution here -- It's an oversimplification to use the word "him"
        to refer to "Matthew," when you are probably referring to AMt but should be
        keeping open the likelihood that "him" in this context was the translator of
        Semitic Matthew into Greek. It is the latter who saw Greek Mark and at times
        borrowed some of its Greek wording, according to the AH as explained by
        Theodor Zahn. The explanation comes naturally that when translating Semitic
        Matthew into Greek, its translator very frequently used TOTE in rendering
        portions omitted from Mark, but sometimes used Mark's EUTHUS when rendering
        passages closely paralleled in Mark.

        Jim Deardorff
        Corvallis, Oregon
        E-mail: deardorj@...
        Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Brian Wilson wrote - ... Randall Buth commented- ... Brian Wilson replies - Randall, On my hypothesis, the one large source was a set of notes in Greek and was
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 6 1:52 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Brian Wilson wrote -
          >
          >The word "euthus", the historic present and the use of "palin"
          >could have been characteristic of the common source, these idioms
          >frequently being retained by Mark but usually edited out by Matthew or
          >Luke. The description of Jesus in his ministry being "upright" could
          >have been copied by Mark from the common source. And so on. And so on.
          >
          Randall Buth commented-
          >
          >it is not probable that one large source contained all the styles and
          >themes that turn up in our three synoptic gospels.
          >
          Brian Wilson replies -

          Randall,
          On my hypothesis, the one large source was a set of notes in
          Greek and was a translation of a Hebrew/Aramaic original (the Logia).
          Each synoptist then edited the wording of material he selected from this
          Greek set of notes.

          Now the original Hebrew/Aramaic may well have contained some material in
          the style in which Jesus spoke in Hebrew/Aramaic (style number 1). It
          may well also have contained material written in the style of the writer
          of the Logia (style number 2). When the Logia were translated, the
          translation may well have incorporated the Greek style of the Translator
          (style number 3) as well as retaining Greek equivalents of the
          Hebrew/Aramaic idioms of styles 1 and 2. When Mark edited the wording of
          the material he selected from the Translation, he may well also have
          incorporated his own style to a limited extent (style number 4).
          Similarly with Matthew (hence style 5) and Luke (hence style 6). On my
          hypothesis of one common documentary source in Greek used by all three
          synoptists, therefore, the styles of at least six individuals may well
          be present (partly in translated form) in the synoptic gospels.

          Randall also wrote-
          >
          >as for me and my house--- you are looking at individual styles with
          >the above conjunctions, not sources.
          >
          The synoptists used documentary source material, otherwise the synoptic
          gospels would not have such significant similarities of wording and
          order of material. It is therefore impossible to look at individual
          styles in the synoptic gospels without first making assumptions
          concerning sources. You simply do not know whether, for instance, the
          use of KAI EUTHUS in the Gospel of Mark is an indication of the style of
          the writer of the Gospel of Mark, or whether it is part of the style of
          the writer of his source material. You do not know one single word of
          the style of the writer of the Gospel of Mark just by looking at the
          Gospel of Mark itself. Similarly with the other synoptic gospels.

          So it is meaningless to attempt to trace "individual styles" without
          first stating our assumptions concerning sources. We can identify the
          style of an individual writer only if we can first distinguish between
          the words he himself supplied and the wording he took from his source
          material.

          Solving the Synoptic Problem comes first, and determining individual
          styles second. There is no escape from this.

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON

          E-MAIL : brian@... homepage -
          SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
          10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
        • yochanan bitan
          dear brian, you didn t discuss mt 4.1 // randy
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 6 2:30 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            dear brian,
            you didn't discuss mt 4.1 //
            randy
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... This, I thought, was the brilliant part of your analysis, where you identified a passage where the styles are mutually exclusive and proved that the
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 6 6:20 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              At 05:30 PM 3/6/99 -0500, yochanan bitan wrote:
              >you didn't discuss mt 4.1 //

              This, I thought, was the brilliant part of your analysis, where
              you identified a passage where the styles are mutually exclusive
              and proved that "the simple conclusion is that we are dealing
              with gospel writers' style in at least 2 out of three."

              My next question is, do we have method for ascertaining whose
              style the gosel writer' style, or should we agree with Brian
              in that we must solve the synoptic problem on other grounds
              before identifying the style of the final evangelists?

              Stephen Carlson
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
              Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Randall Buth wrote (also) - ... Randall, In my posting yesterday, I omitted the above quote and the following comments on it - On my hypothesis of one
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 7 12:46 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Randall Buth wrote (also) -
                >
                >there is one place, with a couple of suggestive back ups, where matthew
                >has 'tote', 4.1 mark has 'kai euthys' 1.12 and luke 'de' 4.1.
                >[perhaps mt 9.6 tote, vs mk 2.8 euthys (2 verses earlier)
                >also mt 12.38, tote, vs mk 8.10 evthys (1 verse earlier)]
                >
                >now "the source" couldn't have had all those conjunctions at the same
                >point in the temptation story. the simple conclusion is that we are
                >dealing with gospel writers' style in at least 2 out of three.
                >
                Randall,
                In my posting yesterday, I omitted the above quote and the
                following comments on it -

                On my hypothesis of one documentary source used by all three synoptists,
                each synoptist editing the wording of the material he used from this
                source, "euthys" was definitely a word characteristic of the one source
                (since it occurs in Matthew in parallel material to Mark, seven times -
                Mt 3.16, 13.20, 13.21, 14.27, 21.2, 21.3, 27.74, and it is very
                improbable that Matthew and Mark should independently have supplied the
                same word at the same seven points.) On the same hypothesis, where Mark
                has "kai euthus" and Matthew has just "euthus", the phrase "kai euthus"
                probably occurred in the common source, Mark (as often) retaining the
                wording of the source more faithfully than Matthew, and Matthew (as
                occasionally elsewhere) editing out "kai".

                The word "tote" occurs five times in Mark and is parallelled in four of
                these instances in Matthew (and in Luke, in two of these). These five
                instances of "tote" in Mark (and the two of them in Luke) were from the
                common source. "Tote" also occurs twice in parallels between Matthew and
                Luke but not Mark (Mt 7.5//Lk 6.42, Mt 13.26//Lk21.27), these also being
                from the source common to all three synoptists. In addition, however,
                there are dozens of instances of "tote" in Matthew which are not in
                similar material in Mark or Luke, even where there are other-wise
                similarly-worded parallel passages. These instances of "tote" were
                therefore not from the common source but supplied by Matthew. On my
                hypothesis, therefore, Matthew frequently supplied instances of the word
                "tote" beyond the infrequent instances of "tote" he found in the common
                source. "Tote" might therefore be considered as probably part of the
                style of synoptist Matthew.

                In the case of the beginning of the Temptation account, therefore,
                Matthew himself probably supplied "tote", whereas Mark copied "kai
                euthus" from the common source. In fact Luke has "kai" parallel to the
                same word within Mark's "kai euthus" at the same point in his parallel.
                Literally Mark has "and (kai) immediately the spirit drove him out into
                the wilderness" where Luke has "and (kai) he was led by the Spirit for
                forty days in the wilderness". The previous part of the sentence in Lk
                4.1a is probably material supplied by Luke to help connect the
                Temptation with the previous pericope(s), Luke's editing continuing into
                the second part of the verse where he chooses to omit "euthus" after
                "kai" in the common source.

                On my hypothesis, each synoptic gospel was formed by selecting,
                connecting and editing disconnected pericopes from a documentary source
                common to all three synoptists. The different ways in which the
                beginnings of the three accounts of the Temptation are linked to the
                preceding pericopes in the synoptic gospels, is an illustration of this.

                Best wishes,
                BRIAN WILSON
              • Brian E. Wilson
                ... Stephen Carlson replied - ... Stephen, Please see my omitted discussion on this which I have since sent in my second posting (which crossed with Randy s
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 7 1:00 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  > yochanan bitan wrote to Brian Wilson:
                  >
                  >>you didn't discuss mt 4.1 //
                  >
                  Stephen Carlson replied -
                  >
                  >This, I thought, was the brilliant part of your analysis, where
                  >you identified a passage where the styles are mutually exclusive
                  >and proved that "the simple conclusion is that we are dealing
                  >with gospel writers' style in at least 2 out of three."
                  >
                  Stephen,
                  Please see my omitted discussion on this which I have since sent
                  in my second posting (which crossed with Randy's reply).

                  Stephen Carlson also wrote-
                  >
                  >My next question is, do we have method for ascertaining whose
                  >style the gospel writer' style, or should we agree with Brian
                  >in that we must solve the synoptic problem on other grounds
                  >before identifying the style of the final evangelists?
                  >
                  Stephen,
                  We should not try and do the impossible. It is impossible to
                  ascertain the style of the writer of a synoptic gospel without first
                  making assumptions concerning sources. This is why solving the Synoptic
                  Problem is so important.

                  Best wishes,
                  BRIAN WILSON
                • Dennis Sullivan
                  Shalom, Brian! Dennis here. I really like the Duality in the Synoptic Gospels , with the good fit/bad fit examples. A very good study! I still have a
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 9 2:42 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Shalom, Brian!

                    Dennis here. I really like the "Duality in the Synoptic Gospels", with the
                    "good fit/bad fit" examples. A very good study!

                    I still have a problem, though, with the concept of a single Greek source
                    for all three synoptics. I've seen some problems that are not often
                    discussed (to my knowledge) that could raise questions for this hypothesis
                    as well as some other ones.

                    One problem: Assuming Matthew and Luke were looking at the same documents
                    and the same saying unit, why does Matthew (13:17) say that "many of the
                    prophets and of the "just" have wished...", and Luke writes "many prophets
                    and "kings" have wished..."? There seems to be no literary or theological
                    rationale for the difference.

                    Perhaps we could guess that there were two versions of the saying in the
                    Greek notes, but the more simple and logical explanation has been pointed
                    out by DSS scholar Jean Carmignac some years ago. He argued that both
                    authors were looking at, and translating from the same Hebrew document, and
                    Luke simply misread the Hebrew word for "and just ones" [v'yasharim], and
                    read instead [v'sarim--and kings] (literally "princes"), overlooking one
                    very small letter--the yod. It can easily happen, especially when one is
                    working from handwritten documents in which the yod and the vav can look
                    very similar.

                    I don't know if Luke could read Hebrew, so we may have to attribute the
                    error to the translator of (one of) Luke's source(s).

                    The same may apply to Matthew. In Matt. 2:6, we find "among the "princes"
                    or "rulers" of Judah. This doesn't agree with the LXX or the Hebrew text.
                    It looks like Matthew--or his source translator--has made his own (mis)
                    translation of the Hebrew text [b'alpei] (among the thousands), using the
                    wrong vocalization [b'allupei] (among the princes)--since, of course, there
                    are no vowels in the Hebrew text.

                    There seems to be some confusion, too, between the Hebrew [QR'--kof, resh,
                    ayin] (cry out, proclaim, preach, call, demand), and [QRH--kof, resh, hey]
                    or [QR'] (come, bring, happen). This turns up with Luke 9:40 "...I have
                    "asked" your disciples..." and Matthew 17:16 "...I have "brought" him to
                    your disciples..."

                    Mark 11:14 reads "...may no one eat fruit...", and Matthew 21:19 says
                    "...may no fruit ever come from you again." "Eat" would be Hebrew [yokel],
                    and "produce fruit" would be Hebrew [yovel]. The letters bet and caph
                    resemble each other, so there is a possibility for confusion between the
                    two.

                    Matthew 11:25 "...at that time Jesus answered and said...", and Luke 10:21
                    "...at that hour (Jesus) filled with joy by the Holy Spirit said..."
                    Matthew
                    read [WY`N--vayan] "and answered", and Luke apparently read [WYRN--v'yaran]
                    "filled with joy", confusing the letters ayin and resh. Luke then added "by
                    the Holy Spirit" in order to explain this unexpected joy.

                    I realize that it's difficult to build a case on a few examples--but these
                    are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of additional occurrences
                    of Hebrew-to-Greek anomalies in Carmignac's little book, in Delitzsch and
                    others, and many more in the publications of the Jerusalem school and its
                    scholars. Matthew Black, in his effort to show Aramaic as the underlying
                    language of the Gospels and Acts cites a number of semitisms, but concludes
                    that many of them will work in Hebrew as well as Aramaic.

                    One of the best examples of a non-Aramaic semitism in the Gospels is found
                    in Matthew 1:21, where the angel says to Mary: "You shall call his name
                    Jesus [Yeshua], for he will save [yoshia] his people from their sins." The
                    causative relationship "for" doesn't work in Greek or English, or in any
                    other language that I know of--only Hebrew. According to Carmignac, the
                    root "yasha" doesn't exist in Aramaic. I don't find it in my lexicons.

                    For me, the net effect of examining the Hebrew syntax, composition style,
                    and variant translations found in the synoptics leads to the conclusion that
                    there was more than one source. And these sources, even though they may be
                    Greek, were in some way based on an earlier Hebrew source--written, not
                    oral.

                    Best wishes,

                    Dennis Sullivan, Dayton, Ohio (Friend of the Jerusalem School)
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 3/9/1999 5:43:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, densull@megsinet.net writes:
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 10 5:24 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 3/9/1999 5:43:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                      densull@... writes:

                      <<
                      One problem: Assuming Matthew and Luke were looking at the same documents
                      and the same saying unit, why does Matthew (13:17) say that "many of the
                      prophets and of the "just" have wished...", and Luke writes "many prophets
                      and "kings" have wished..."? There seems to be no literary or theological
                      rationale for the difference.
                      >>
                      Denis, I explain this phenomenon as follows (assuming dependence of Luke on
                      Matthew). During the ministry of Jesus, Luke never refers to a human being as
                      "just". He edits out every reference to just persons and justice as applied to
                      living human beings in Matthew, his main gospel source, during this interval
                      of Jesus' ministry, i.e., until Jesus' death (when he almost immediately so
                      qualifies Joseph of Arimathea). I believe this is a literary device on the
                      part of Luke based on, and in illustration of, the principle found in
                      Matthew's Gospel: "I have come [ministry of Jesus] not to call the just, but
                      sinners". Accordingly, Luke substitutes "kings" for "just men" in the passage
                      in question.

                      Leonard Maluf
                    • Mark Goodacre
                      ... This is a most interesting point -- thanks. I note that Zechariah & Elizabeth (1.6) and Simeon (2.25) are both described as DIKAIOS, and presumably you
                      Message 10 of 12 , Mar 11 3:13 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 10 Mar 99 at 20:24, Maluflen@... wrote:

                        > Denis, I explain this phenomenon as follows (assuming dependence of Luke on
                        > Matthew). During the ministry of Jesus, Luke never refers to a human being as
                        > "just". He edits out every reference to just persons and justice as applied to
                        > living human beings in Matthew, his main gospel source, during this interval
                        > of Jesus' ministry, i.e., until Jesus' death (when he almost immediately so
                        > qualifies Joseph of Arimathea). I believe this is a literary device on the
                        > part of Luke based on, and in illustration of, the principle found in
                        > Matthew's Gospel: "I have come [ministry of Jesus] not to call the just, but
                        > sinners". Accordingly, Luke substitutes "kings" for "just men" in the passage
                        > in question.

                        This is a most interesting point -- thanks. I note that Zechariah & Elizabeth
                        (1.6) and Simeon (2.25) are both described as DIKAIOS, and presumably you would
                        feel that that confirms your point re. Jesus' ministry. 15.7 certainly
                        illustrates the same theme, "I tell you that in the same way, there will be
                        more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous
                        persons who need no repentance." A couple of questions arise from this:

                        (1) How would you then see the other occasions when Luke mentions DIKAIOS and
                        the related words? Is there a contrast between those who think of themselves
                        as righteous (18.9, 20.20 etc.) and those who actually achieve righteousness
                        (18.14, "I tell you, this man went to his house righteoused rather than the
                        other")?

                        (2) Why does Luke choose the word "kings" to replace Matthew's "righteous"?
                        Goulder suggests that it is because he has David in his mind with the mention
                        of Psa. 91.13 in Luke 10.19, but I don't think that this is very strong.

                        This example is a good one, though, of what Goulder calls the Matthean
                        vocabulary fallacy: the Matthean DIKAIOI is rightly seen to be
                        characteristic of Matthew but it is then wrongly inferred that Luke's BASILEIS
                        necessarily has the more primitive (Q) wording.

                        Mark
                        --------------------------------------
                        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                        Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                        Aseneth Home Page
                        Recommended New Testament Web Resources
                        World Without Q
                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                        In a message dated 3/11/1999 6:16:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, M.S.GOODACRE@bham.ac.uk writes:
                        Message 11 of 12 , Mar 11 12:45 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 3/11/1999 6:16:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                          M.S.GOODACRE@... writes:

                          <<
                          [Lk]15.7 certainly illustrates the same theme, "I tell you that in the same
                          way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over
                          ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance." A couple of questions
                          arise from this:

                          (1) How would you then see the other occasions when Luke mentions DIKAIOS and
                          the related words? Is there a contrast between those who think of themselves
                          as righteous (18.9, 20.20 etc.) and those who actually achieve righteousness
                          (18.14, "I tell you, this man went to his house righteoused rather than the
                          other")?>>

                          Yes, Mark, though I would word the last part of your sentence: "..and those
                          who are declared righteous by God" (this would account for 14:14 as well as
                          the text you cite). Stated more cautiously, and fully, my position is that
                          Luke removes all references to human "justice" (dikaiosyne) and to just
                          persons (dikaios, dikaioi) WITH A POSITIVE CONNOTATION (this allows for cases
                          such as Lk 5:32 and 15:7, where "the just" has a clearly negative valence)
                          during the ministry of Jesus (of which there are numerous cases in parallel
                          Matthean material). Luke's interest in the theme of those who consider
                          themselves righteous is well known and probably shows the influence of Paul,
                          as well as of Matt 9:13, though it is to be noted that Luke's texts (16:15,
                          18:9 and 20:20) are much more explicit in speaking of SELF-righteousness than
                          is Matt 9:13, where this idea is at best only implied. It is undeniable that
                          Luke was familiar with the basic theses of Paul on justification, as is clear
                          especially from Acts 13:39, and that this thesis influenced his gospel
                          formulations in more places than one. This is why the tradition often saw a
                          reference to Luke in 2 Cor 8:18.

                          << (2) Why does Luke choose the word "kings" to replace Matthew's "righteous"?
                          Goulder suggests that it is because he has David in his mind with the mention
                          of Psa. 91.13 in Luke 10.19, but I don't think that this is very strong.>>

                          My feeling is that Luke interpreted Matt 13:16-17 (and note how he updates
                          Matt 13:16: not "your eyes..", but "the eyes that see what you see..", i.e.,
                          the recipients of the Pauline gospel) in the light of what he regarded as a
                          partially parallel text, Matt 11:25-27. In fact, as is well known, he
                          literally combines these two texts. Now that text (Matt 11:25) speaks of
                          things being hidden from "the wise and those with understanding" and revealed
                          to little ones. Kings in the OT were patrons of wisdom, and they also
                          constitute a natural polarity to "little ones", and so this text becomes just
                          another occasion, welcomed by Luke, to have the mighty tossed from their
                          thrones and the humble exalted.

                          Leonard Maluf
                        • yochanan bitan
                          ... wondering ... i think that matthew s narrative-tote-style is coming from himself, not an aramaic source. randall buth
                          Message 12 of 12 , Mar 12 6:02 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > and with so many tote's in Matthew's narration also
                            > suggesting an Aramaic source, according to Randall Buth, I've been
                            wondering
                            > how your above Hebrew-source concept fits in.

                            i think that matthew's narrative-tote-style is coming from himself, not an
                            aramaic source.

                            randall buth
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.