Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: a book on the LP
- yochanan bitan wrote:
> >> >I'm finding myself more and more inclined to the position,These parallels, in the Kaddish (or an early version) and other Jewish
> >> > 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
> >> > 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.
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 neologismI wonder if the key to this might be the different eschatological
> "epiousion" 'coming-y'.
> something non-standard, idiomatic, 'literary', is almost certainly behind
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.
>The notion of a Semitic source used by Luke and a Greek source
> 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
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 assumeThat would depend on the audience for that prayer, in this case the
> aramaic outright for a first century jewish prayer.
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 someoneI'd love to polish up with your course, Randy. To have begun my
> running an intensive jpa aramaic course this january.
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.
taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon
- On 6 Dec 99, at 19:32, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
> > Incidentally, I'm finding myself more and more inclined to the position,It is an interesting question, and encouraging to see Goulder's critique
> > 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.
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
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
The New Testament Gateway
All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
Mark Without Q
Aseneth Home Page