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

Re: [Synoptic-L] at the light of the first day/Mt2nd

Expand Messages
  • Randall Buth
    shalom Leonard, ... translation ... be ... in ... or ... been ... The main answer is that too many details in Matthew are twisted around in non- Hebraic ways,
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      shalom Leonard,

      > How do you differentiate between Matthew having access to a good
      >Hebraic-Greek source and Matthew simply being a (sometimes free)
      >of an original Heb Matt into Greek (possibly even done by the bilingual
      >author of HebMatt himself)? It seems to me that the same phenomena could
      >explained either way, and the second would have the support of tradition
      >its favor. I suspect you have answered this question before, in one form
      >another, but I need a refresher course as the answer seems not to have
      >persuasive enough (or my memory not retentive enough) to stick. Shalom!
      >Leonard Maluf

      The main answer is that too many details in Matthew are twisted around in
      Hebraic ways, and often when this happens it comes from Mark. I'll give two

      examples here.

      1. Mark loves EUQUS (evthys) 'immediately'. Around forty-one times, by
      Matthew uses immediately, but he mixes EUQEWS with EUQUS. The telling
      examples come from examining the individual occurrences. Every Matthean
      EUQUS is parallel to a Marcan EUQUS, but this is not so with EUQEWS. Ergo,
      a Marcanism is turning up in Matthew.

      2. Matthew's quote of the shma "love the Lord with all your heart, soul,
      and mind
      <period>. This betrays a correction of the four-fold Lucan and Marcan
      Matthew has "obviously" limited the quotation to a three-fold citation,
      because the
      Hebrew text was three-fold. But Mt did NOT take this from a Hebrew text
      "heart,soul,MIND" is not a simple correction to Hebrew. It is most probably

      a Marcanism as far as Matthew is concerned. (Not reflecting LXX or Hebrew.)
      The following line ("the second is like it") is even more strongly Marcan,
      Mark is the one with the "1st" "2nd" device while Matthew has the pure
      Mishnaic Hebrew "klal gadol" at the start.

      There are many like the above scattered throughout Matthew, which is why I
      feel that Matthew followed Mark but had access to an excellent
      narrative (note well: not a 'sayings source' as "light to 1st day" would

      As for tradition, please note: it is within the realm of reasonable
      speculation that
      Matthew was the author of the Hebrew source to the Hebraic-Greek stuff. But
      that is a "different Matthew" from the author of our Gospel, apparently. At
      our Matthean Gospel is a mix of a pre-synoptic "good text", (apparently
      shared with Luke and Mark), and Mark the Gospel.

      hope this is enough of a start. One must weigh probabilities. In any one
      single instance one can always argue extraordinary circumstances:
      "But couldn't A have happened, and then B, and C could explain what we
      have?" (Ans: Yes, but is that the most probable, direct reading?)

      In any case, enjoy the "OR LEYOM RISHON" idiom
      that turns up in Matthew. I just checked for a source on it and had
      that it is found in Mishna PesaHim
      "or learba`ah `asar lenisan" the evening of the 14th of Nisan, just about
      close literally to our weekend as one could hope.


      Randall Buth

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.