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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Dec 7 8:10 AM
      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 2 of 5 , Dec 10 6:24 AM
        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.