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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: a book on the LP

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... I have been leaning toward the posibility that the Matthean scribe used a Greek Q while Luke did his own translation of an Aramaic Q. If this is true,
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 6, 1999
      "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:

      > >
      > > Incidentally, I'm finding myself more and more inclined to the position,
      > > noted some time ago by E.F. Scott, that none of the "Matthean" bits in
      > > the LP are secondary. That is to say, I'm entertaining the idea that what has
      > > traditionally been taken to be Matthean additions to the prayer are not
      > > additions at all but represent the Q (or earliest Greek) form of the
      > > prayer. This has been percolating ever since I skimmed through Goulder's latest
      > > article in JBL on self contradiction in the IQP. If Matthew, certainly
      > > more than Luke, comes out of the same environment in which Q was produced,
      > > why should we not regard the language of Matthean Q sayings and material as
      > > more faithful to Q than, as is usually done, that of their Lukan
      > > counterparts? I suppose this is something I'm going to have to raise on Synoptic-L.
      >
      > So now I'm raising it -- the question of whether Matthew's so called
      > expansions in the LP are really just that, that is.
      >
      > I'd be grateful for comments -- on this idea or on anything else mooted
      > above.

      I have been leaning toward the posibility that the Matthean scribe used
      a "Greek Q" while Luke did his own translation of an "Aramaic Q."
      If this is true, the so-called Matthean expansions of the LP proposed
      by Jeremias (Abba.Studien zur Neutestamentlichen Theologie und
      Zietgeschichte, 1966, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen) and also
      in "The Lord's Prayer" 1973 and "The Prayers of Jesus" 1978 but
      also by Fitzmyer (The Gospel According to Luke, p896-909) may not be
      expansions by the hagiographer but of "Greek Q" and Lukes "Aramaic
      Q" may have been closer to the verba Iesu. A more "primitive"
      Aramaic Q might explain some of the other differences between
      Matthean and Lukan sayings material.

      Just a thought.

      Jack

      --
      ______________________________________________

      taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

      Jack Kilmon
      jkilmon@...

      http://www.historian.net

      sharing a meal for free.
      http://www.thehungersite.com/
    • yochanan bitan
      ... what has ... not ... Goulder s latest ... JG So now I m raising it -- the question of whether Matthew s so called JG expansions in the LP are really
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 6, 1999
        >> >I'm finding myself more and more inclined to the position,
        >> > noted some time ago by E.F. Scott, that none of the "Matthean" bits in
        >> > the LP are secondary. That is to say, I'm entertaining the idea that
        what has
        >> > traditionally been taken to be Matthean additions to the prayer are
        not
        >> > additions at all but represent the Q (or earliest Greek) form of the
        >> > prayer. This has been percolating ever since I skimmed through
        Goulder's latest
        >> > article in JBL on self contradiction in the IQP.
        JG>> So now I'm raising it -- the question of whether Matthew's so called
        JG>> expansions in the LP are really just that, that is.

        JK>I have been leaning toward the posibility that the Matthean scribe used
        JK>a "Greek Q" while Luke did his own translation of an "Aramaic Q."

        each of the phrases has distinctive jewish parallels and these need to be
        traced in jewish sources and literature, whether hebrew or aramaic. most of
        the older ones turn out to be hebrew, but that is irrelevant.

        interesting puzzles include why matthew and luke both have a neologism
        "epiousion" 'coming-y'.
        something non-standard, idiomatic, 'literary', is almost certainly behind
        it.
        while it is possible that luke did the translation (anything is possible,
        but not everything is probable), it is much more likely that we are looking
        at a shared greek source.
        said source, of course, goes back to something semitic and probably
        written.

        on the 'aramaic Q' mentioned above. it would be bad methodology to assume
        aramaic outright for a first century jewish prayer. [i say this as someone
        running an intensive jpa aramaic course this january. anyone have
        interested students who want to come? reasonably priced housing could be
        arranged. el-al has special ticket prices:
        Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. 3 credits, Jerusalem School of Synoptic
        Research, Dr. R. Buth.
        Prerequisite: one year of Biblical Hebrew or level gimel Modern Hebrew.
        Cost: $900.

        10 January-28 January 2000, 3 hours/day Monday-Friday.
        This course introduces a student to both literary and 'colloquial'
        dialects of
        Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the 3-5 century CE. Readings include the
        Antiochus Scroll, selected stories from the Jerusalem Talmud
        and Midrashim. Selections from the Palestininan Targum will be read and
        compared with Hebrew midrashic techniques and writings. Strongly
        recommended for students of NT Backgrounds, Hebrew and
        Northwest Semitic languages and ancient Jewish exegesis. (course
        developed at request of Steven Notley for JUC students. At the
        conclusion of this course students will be able to read Aramaic Daniel
        and
        Ezra on their own but we will not have covered them in class.)]

        yisge shlamxon
        randall buth
      • Jack Kilmon
        ... These parallels, in the Kaddish (or an early version) and other Jewish sources does not take those phrases out of the mouth of the HJ whose education and
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 7, 1999
          yochanan bitan wrote:

          > >> >I'm finding myself more and more inclined to the position,
          > >> > noted some time ago by E.F. Scott, that none of the "Matthean" bits in
          > >> > the LP are secondary. That is to say, I'm entertaining the idea that
          > what has
          > >> > traditionally been taken to be Matthean additions to the prayer are
          > not
          > >> > additions at all but represent the Q (or earliest Greek) form of the
          > >> > prayer. This has been percolating ever since I skimmed through
          > Goulder's latest
          > >> > article in JBL on self contradiction in the IQP.
          > JG>> So now I'm raising it -- the question of whether Matthew's so called
          > JG>> expansions in the LP are really just that, that is.
          >
          > JK>I have been leaning toward the posibility that the Matthean scribe used
          > JK>a "Greek Q" while Luke did his own translation of an "Aramaic Q."
          >
          > each of the phrases has distinctive jewish parallels and these need to be
          > traced in jewish sources and literature, whether hebrew or aramaic. most of
          > the older ones turn out to be hebrew, but that is irrelevant.

          These parallels, in the Kaddish (or an early version) and other Jewish
          sources does not take those phrases out of the mouth of the HJ whose
          education and "prayer background" would have been anchored in
          the same sources.

          > interesting puzzles include why matthew and luke both have a neologism
          > "epiousion" 'coming-y'.
          > something non-standard, idiomatic, 'literary', is almost certainly behind
          > it.

          I wonder if the key to this might be the different eschatological
          perspectives of these two authors. Matthew believes in an
          imminent coming and hence dos hmin shmeron in the aorist.
          Luke thinks its a long way off, hence didou hmin to kaq hmeran
          in present imperative. Does epiousion make more sense with
          Luke's construction than Matthew's? If so, could Matthew
          have gotten it from Luke?

          I see your point, though Randy. A shared Greek idiosyncrasy
          means a shared Greek written source, but not if one of these
          gospelers "borrowed" the idiosyncrasy from the other.

          >
          > while it is possible that luke did the translation (anything is possible,
          > but not everything is probable), it is much more likely that we are looking
          > at a shared greek source.
          > said source, of course, goes back to something semitic and probably
          > written.

          The notion of a Semitic source used by Luke and a Greek source
          by Matthew intrigues me more and more as I continue to think
          about it. As you say above..a shared Greek source that goes
          back to Semitic does not discount a Greek rescension for one
          author and a Semitic one for the other.

          > on the 'aramaic Q' mentioned above. it would be bad methodology to assume
          > aramaic outright for a first century jewish prayer.

          That would depend on the audience for that prayer, in this case the
          disciples and/or crowd..hence, Aramaic. Yes, I know we disagree
          on the spoken language of ordinary folk..but that aside, why is
          it bad methodology?

          > [i say this as someone
          > running an intensive jpa aramaic course this january.

          I'd love to polish up with your course, Randy. To have begun my
          studies with Bill Albright as a youngster and to polish them up under
          Randall Buth in late life would be icing on the cake for me...but alas,
          not this time..but maybe for the next one.

          However..your giving the course does not explain why it is bad
          methodology to assume Aramaic for a 1st century prayer when
          the common tongue for the non-literate was Aramaic.

          Jack

          --
          ______________________________________________

          taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

          Jack Kilmon
          jkilmon@...

          http://www.historian.net
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... It is an interesting question, and encouraging to see Goulder s critique taken seriously. One or two thoughts: (1) Of course Goulder s major point is the
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 10, 1999
            On 6 Dec 99, at 19:32, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

            > > Incidentally, I'm finding myself more and more inclined to the position,
            > > noted some time ago by E.F. Scott, that none of the "Matthean" bits in
            > > the LP are secondary. That is to say, I'm entertaining the idea that
            > > what has traditionally been taken to be Matthean additions to the prayer
            > > are not additions at all but represent the Q (or earliest Greek) form of
            > > the prayer. This has been percolating ever since I skimmed through
            > > Goulder's latest article in JBL on self contradiction in the IQP. If
            > > Matthew, certainly more than Luke, comes out of the same environment in
            > > which Q was produced, why should we not regard the language of Matthean
            > > Q sayings and material as more faithful to Q than, as is usually done,
            > > that of their Lukan counterparts? I suppose this is something I'm going
            > > to have to raise on Synoptic-L.

            It is an interesting question, and encouraging to see Goulder's critique
            taken seriously. One or two thoughts:

            (1) Of course Goulder's major point is the methodological problem of
            reconstructing Q based on the assumption that its language is non-
            Matthean, particularly given the clear cases of Matthean characteristic
            phraseology in verbatim double tradition. For him, this is a sign of just
            how self-contradictory the enterprise of reconstructing Q is, not least
            because of that standard argument from alternating primitivity:
            ultimately this sheds doubt on the existence of Q.

            (2) The question, however, that Jeffrey seems to be asking here is
            whether Goulder's critique might be valuable not so much in casting
            doubt on Q as in casting doubt on the way in which it tends to be
            reconstructed. This is an interesting question but I think that it re-
            focuses Goulder's central concern all the more: if we admit that Q's
            style was largely Matthean, we need to notice that the argument from
            alternating primitivity is beginning to be eroded, hence one of the
            standard grounds for believing that Q existed at all is undermined.

            (3) What, though, of the undeniably Matthean elements in phraseology
            of the Lord's Prayer? Goulder feels that they are signs of Matthean
            composition of the prayer out of the hints in Mark. My own feeling is
            that Matthew has probably composed the Lord's prayer in interaction
            with oral tradition. Goulder's theory does not adequately account for
            the oddity of EPIOUSION, for example: indeed he struggles to find a
            source in Mark for that whole petition (in the original JTS piece even
            attributing this to oral tradition before he had worked out the full
            "midrashic" theory).

            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
            The New Testament Gateway
            All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
            Mark Without Q
            Aseneth Home Page
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.