An Aramaic Approach to Q

23 Pages·2003·0.12 MB·English

An Aramaic Approach to Q
SourcesfortheGospelsofMatthewandLuke
MAURICE CASEY
UniversityofNottingham
PUBLISHEDBYTHEPRESSSYNDICATEOFTHEUNIVERSITYOFCAMBRIDGE
ThePittBuilding,TrumpingtonStreet,Cambridge,UnitedKingdom
CAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITYPRESS
TheEdinburghBuilding,CambridgeCB22RU,UK
40West20thStreet,NewYork,NY10011-4211,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,Australia
RuizdeAlarco´n13,28014Madrid,Spain
DockHouse,TheWaterfront,CapeTown8001,SouthAfrica
http://www.cambridge.org
(cid:1)C MauriceCasey2002
Thisbookisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithout
thewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2002
PrintedintheUnitedKingdomattheUniversityPress,Cambridge
TypefaceTimes10/12pt. SystemLATEX2ε [TB]
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
LibraryofCongresscataloguinginpublicationdata
Casey,Maurice.
AnAramaicapproachtoQ:sourcesfortheGospelsofMatthewandLuke/MauriceCasey.
p. cm. (SocietyforNewTestamentStudiesmonographseries;122)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN0521817234(hardback)
1.Qhypothesis(Synopticscriticism) 2.Aramaicliterature–RelationtotheNewTesta-
ment. I.Title. II.Monographseries(SocietyforNewTestamentStudies);122.
BS2555.52.C37 2002
226(cid:2).066–dc21
2002024648CIP
ISBN0521817234hardback
CONTENTS
Preface pageix
Listofabbreviations x
1 Thestateofplay 1
2 Method 51
3 ScribesandPharisees:Matthew23.23–36//
Luke11.39–51 64
4 JohntheBaptist:Matthew11.2–19//Luke7.18–35 105
5 Exorcismandoverlappingsources:Mark3.20–30;
Matthew12.22–32;Luke11.14–23;12.10 146
6 Conclusions 185
Selectbibliography 191
Indexofpassagesdiscussed 206
Indexofnamesandsubjects 209
vii
1
THE STATE OF PLAY
The present state of research into ‘Q’ varies from the chaotic to the
bureaucratic.Atthechaoticendofthespectrum,thereisnoagreementas
towhetherQexisted,norastowhatitwas,ifitdid.Atthebureaucraticend
ofthespectrum,anamorphousgroupofscholarshaveagreedthatitwas
aGreekdocument.ItwasproducedbyaQcommunity,whoseconcerns
canbeworkedoutfromit.Someofthesescholarssupposethatwecan
workoutwhatthisQcommunitydidnot believefromwhatwasnotin
Q,tothepointthattheQcommunitydidnothaveanatonementtheology
becauseQhasnopassionnarrative.Mostscholarswhobelievethisalso
believe that Q was the first Gospel, and that its picture of Jesus was
thatofsomekindofCynicphilosopher.Aswenarrowdownthegroupof
scholarstomoredetailedagreements,soweseeanincreaseinthenumber
ofcommonjudgementsmadeintheinterestsofaconsensusofthegroup,
withquiteinadequateattentiontoevidenceorargument.Wealsoseethe
large-scaleomissionofAramaic,thelanguageinwhichJesustaught.
The purpose of this book is to suggest that the use of Aramaic has
somethingtocontributetothestudyofQ.Inapreviousbook,Isuggested
thattheGospelofMarkconsistspartlyofAramaicsourceswhichhave
been literally translated into Greek. Consequently, they can be partly
reconstructed. In the light of recent research, including that stemming
fromthediscoveryoftheDeadSeascrolls,Isoughttolaydownthemost
fruitfulwayofdoingthis,andIexemplifiedthiswithreconstructionsof
Mark9.11–13,2.23–3.6,10.35–45and14.12–26.1Inthisbook,Ipropose
to see what we can do for Q. After discussing the history of research,
Iconsideragainthemostappropriatemethodologyforthiskindofwork.
IthenreconstructanddiscussthesourcesofMatt.23.23–36//Luke11.39–
51andMatt.11.2–19//Luke7.18–35.Iturnfinallytooneofthe‘overlaps’
between Mark and Q, and discuss the recoverable Aramaic sources of
Mark3.20–30,Matt.12.22–32,andLuke11.14–23;12.10.Throughout
1 P.M.Casey,AramaicSourcesofMark’sGospel(SNTS.MS102.Cambridge,1998).
1
2 AnAramaicApproachtoQ
thesediscussions,IcontinuetheworkofmypreviousbookinthatIseek
tocontributenotonlytoourunderstandingofQ,butalsototherecovery
oftheJesusofhistory.
Wemustbeginwithacriticalhistoryofscholarship.HereIdonotseek
tocatalogueallpreviouswork,buttoselectfromthehistoryofscholarship
significantadvancesandmistakes,sothatwecanseemoreclearlyhow
toproceed,andwhatpitfallstoavoid.Oneofthepitfallsliesindifferent
definitionsofwhatQwas,oris.Forclarity’ssake,Ithereforeanticipate
oneoutcomeofthisbookbygivingthedefinitionwhichIusewhenIcon-
ductmyowndiscussionofQ:Qisaconvenientlabelforthesourcesof
passageswhicharefoundinboththeGospelofMatthewandtheGospel
ofLuke,andwhichhavenotbeentakenfromMark’sGospel.Itwillbe
clearthatthisentailssomecontroversialconclusions,andthatwemustbe
carefultonotethatitdoesnotentailothers.ItimpliesthatQwasnotasin-
gledocument,andthatLukedidnottakeallhisQmaterialfromMatthew;
Ishallargueforbothofthesehypothesesindetail.Itmeansthatwecan
meaningfullydiscusswhetherapassagesuchasMatt.11.28–30istobe
describedaspartofQ;itisnotfoundinLuke,butwecoulddiscusswhether
itwasinthesamedocumentarysourceasMatt.11.25–27//Luke10.21–2,
whetherMatthewaddedit,whetherLukeknewitorwhetherLukeleftit
out.ItalsomeansthatourevidenceforQisfoundinGreek;itdoesnot
specifythatthisis,orisnot,howitreachedtheevangelists.Ishallargue
thatsomepartsofQreachedbothevangelistsinthesameGreektransla-
tion,andthatotherpartsareduetotwodifferenttranslationsbeingmade,
whetherbytheevangelists,theirassistantsorbymoredistantsources.
FromHoltzmanntoTo¨dt
SeriousmodernresearchintoQeffectivelybeganwithHoltzmann,though
this is not what he called it. In a book published in 1863, he suggested
thattherewasonesourceAbehindtheTripleTraditionofthesynoptic
Gospels, and a second major source behind the Double Tradition. This
sourcehecalled(cid:1),whichstoodfor(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6).2 Atthisstage,however,the
priority of Mark had still not been established, nor had anyone shown
2 H. J. Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher
Charakter (Leipzig, 1863). For predecessors, cf. J. G. Eichhorn, ‘U¨ber die drey ersten
Evangelien. Einige Beytra¨ge zu ihrer ku¨nftigen kritischen Behandlung’, in Allgemeine
BibliothekderbiblischenLiteratur5(Leipzig,1794),pp.761–996;F.D.E.Schleiermacher,
‘U¨ber die Zeugnisse des Papias von unseren beiden ersten Evangelien’, Theologische
StudienundKritiken5,1832,735–68;C.H.Weiße,DieevangelischeGeschichtekritisch
undphilosophischbearbeitet(2vols.,Leipzig,1838),vol.I,ch.1,esp.pp.83–6.
Thestateofplay 3
whatcouldbedonewithAramaic.Meyermadethefirstmajoradvance
inourunderstandingoftheAramaicbackgroundtothesynopticGospels
in1896.Forexample,heofferedthisreconstructionofMatt.12.32:3
qybtvyalavdwqdajwrl[rmyydlkwhlqybtvyvnrbl[almrmyydlk
hl
%
Itisagreatadvantagethatthecompletesentencehasbeenreconstructed,
forthisensuresthatvnrbemergesasanormaltermforman.Itisalsogood
that,eveninaneralongbeforethediscoveryoftheDeadSeascrolls,there
are no problems with the late date of the Aramaic used. Moreover, the
proposedreconstructionpermitstheunderstandingofLuke12.10asan
alternativeversionofthesameAramaic.Thismighthaveledtoimportant
advancesinourunderstandingofQ.AlsohelpfulwasMeyer’sreference
toMark3.28.Thiswas,however,asfarasMeyerwent,eveninthebest
book then written on the Aramaic background of the Gospels, and the
bestforanotherfiftyyears.4 Theimportantadvanceswhichmighthave
flowedfromthisworkweresimplynotmade.
Themassivevarietyofothercommentsfromthesameperiodofschol-
arshipincludedsomebriefbutusefulpoints.Itwasataboutthistimethat
thissourcewascalledQ.ThishasbeennotedintheworksofSimonsin
1880andWeißin1890,andbecamepopularpartlybecauseofthework
ofWernleinanotablebookpublishedin1899.5ThusWellhausencould
describeitsimplyasa‘zusammenhangendenQuelle,diemanmitQbezei-
chnet’.6AmongWellhausen’sownmoreenduringsuggestionswasthatat
Matt.23.26(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)correctlyrepresentstheAramaicdakkau(reinigt),
whereasatLuke11.41(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:2)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:13)representsamisread-
ingofthesamewordaszakkau(gebtAlmosen).7 Thisisplausible,and
a useful contribution to the whole question of the relationship between
3 A.Meyer,JesuMuttersprache.Dasgalila¨ischeArama¨ischinseinerBedeutungfu¨rdie
Erkla¨rungderRedenJesuundderEvangelienu¨berhaupt(Freiburgi.B.andLeipzig,1896),
p.94.
4 ForfurtherdiscussionofMeyer,andacriticalForschungsberichteofthewholeAramaic
question,seeCasey,AramaicSourcesofMark’sGospel,ch.1.
5 E.Simons,HatderdritteEvangelistdenkanonischenMattha¨usbenuzt?(Bonn,1880);
J.Weiß,‘DieVerteidigungJesugegendenVorwurfdesBu¨ndnissesmitBeelzebul’,Theol-
ogischeStudienundKritiken63,1890,555–69;P.Wernle,DiesynoptischeFrage(Freiburg
i.B.,LeipzigandTu¨bingen,1899).Simonsuses‘derapostolischenQuelle’inreferenceto
theworkofB.Weiss,abbreviatesitto‘Q.’,definedcarefullyas‘DieapostolischeQuelle
nachW.’(p.22),andproceedstouse‘Q.’,almostalwayswithafullstop,asanabbreviation
ofthis.Weißuses‘Quelle’initsnormalsense,meaning‘source’,introducesQinbrackets
fortheRedenquelle(p.557),andthensimplyproceedstouseQasasymbolforthesayings
sourcelyingbehindMatthewandLuke.
6 J.Wellhausen,EinleitungindiedreierstenEvangelien(2ndedn,Berlin,1911),p.58.
7 Ibid.,p.27.
4 AnAramaicApproachtoQ
the different forms of Q material.8 At the same time, however, the fact
that Wellhausen normally confined himself to single words meant that
this was a very conjectural process, which could never lead either to a
completeunderstandingofGospelsourcesortoaproperunderstanding
oftranslators.WellhausenalsocommentedonthepossiblelanguageofQ.
HenotedthatverbalagreementissometimessohighastorequireaGreek
Q,whereasinotherpassagestherearevariantswhichmaybeexplainedas
resultingfromtwotranslationsofanAramaicsource.9Itistheproblems
posedbythisfacetoftheevidencethatstillrequireresolution.
A comprehensive attempt to reconstruct Q in Greek was made by
Harnack.10 Harnack began with those passages of Matthew and Luke
which have the highest level of verbal agreement. This enabled him to
arguethatQwasaGreekdocument,andtheargumentfromthisfirstset
ofpassagesisverystrongindeed.Thesimilarargumentforthenextsetof
passages,inwhichthelevelofverbalagreementislower,ismoreofatour
deforce.HarnackarguesthatasingleGreektranslationwasusedbyboth
oftheevangelists,andthatthiswastranslatedfromAramaic.Hedidnot,
however, supply the detailed argumentation which would be necessary
toestablishthisposition;indeedhehasnodetailedargumentationonthe
Aramaic question at all. This has been a constant defect of Q research
eversince.
A major contribution to the study of Q was made by B. H. Streeter,
mostnotablyinTheFourGospels(1924).11Onereasonwhythisbecame
a standard work is that it offered a complete solution to the synoptic
problem,includingdecisiveargumentsforthepriorityofMark.Streeter
said very little about Aramaic, however. He treated Q as a document
writteninGreek,anddiscussedwhetherpassageswheretherewascon-
siderablevariationinwordingbetweentheMattheanandLucanversions
belongedtoit.AmostinadequatetreatmentofAramaicisjustsqueezed
intothediscussionofthe‘minoragreements’.12Herethechangeswhich
MatthewandLukemadetoMark’sexcessiveuseof(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:22),andtohisequally
excessiveuseofthehistoricpresent,arecorrectlyseenasthereactionsof
8 Seefurtherpp.23–4,82below. 9 Wellhausen,Einleitung,pp.59–60.
10 A.vonHarnack,Spru¨cheundRedenJesu.DiezweiteQuelledesMattha¨usundLukas
(Leipzig, 1907); ET New Testament Studies, vol. II: The Sayings of Jesus. The Second
SourceofStMatthewandStLuke(London,1908).
11 B.H.Streeter,TheFourGospels.AStudyofOrigins(London,1924).SeeearlierB.H.
Streeter,‘OntheOriginalOrderofQ’,inW.Sanday(ed.),StudiesintheSynopticProblem
byMembersoftheUniversityofOxford(Oxford,1911),pp.141–64:‘StMark’sKnowledge
andUseofQ’,inSanday(ed.),Studies,pp.165–83:‘TheOriginalExtentofQ’,inSanday
(ed.),Studies,pp.185–208.
12 Streeter,FourGospels,pp.296–8.
Thestateofplay 5
twoGreekwriterstoonewhoseGreekhasbeeninfluencedbyAramaic.
Moreover,thisiscorrectlyseenasthereasonforthoseminoragreements
whichconsistofthembothdoingsointhesamepassages.Streeterdid
not, however, offer any reasonable demonstration that Aramaic was re-
allythecauseofunusualfeaturesinMark’sGreek,stilllessofhisbald
assertionthat‘Mark’sGreekisthatofapersonwhohadbeenbroughtup
tothinkinAramaic.’13Morecentrally,heofferednoproperdiscussionof
thepossibilityofAramaicsourcesofQatall.Hedidnotevenconsider
thepossibilitythatsomepassagesmightbetheresultoftwotranslations
ofAramaicsourcematerial.
Streeter also stored up future trouble by arguing that very little was
omittedfromQbyMatthewandLuke.14Hisargumentsforthisposition
carrynoweightatall.HisfirstisthatMatthewomittedverylittlefrom
Mark. This, however, demonstrates nothing, since Matthew might have
preferredMarkbecauseitgaveacoherentoutlinefortheministry,butfelt
that it needed expanding with some more of Jesus’ teaching. He could
haveselectedfromamassiveQwhatheneededforthispurpose,making
asomewhatlongerGospel,andleavingmostofQout.Themerefactthat
heeditsmostofMarkdoesnottellusthesizeofhisQnorhowmuchof
itheused.
Moreover,LukedidleaveoutalotofMark.Streeter’ssecondargument
isthatLukeusedamutilatedcopyofMark.15 Thisomittedmostofthe
‘greatomission’,goingstraightfromMark6.47(cid:6)(cid:23)(cid:14)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:25)toMark8.27
(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:17)(cid:30).Streeter’sargumentsforthisviewareabsolutelyarbitrary.
(cid:31)
For example, he suggests that it would explain Luke’s omission of the
place-name Caesarea Philippi as the scene of Peter’s confession (Luke
9.18).ButthisistheonlymentionofCaesareaPhilippiintheGospels,
anditisalongwaynorthofGalileeinanareawhichJesusisnototherwise
known to have visited. Luke may therefore have omitted it because he
thought it must be a mistake. In short, Streeter’s argument assumes his
result: he regards this view as probable only because he thinks sources
aremorelikelycausesofchangesthaneditorialalterations.Itis,however,
most unlikely that a copy of Mark would be mutilated in this way, and
thatsoassiduousacollectorofinformationasLukewouldbeunableto
obtainanunmutilatedcopy.Wewouldthereforerequirestrongevidence
tobelievethis,andwehavenoneatall.Streeteraddsspecialexplanations
ofLuke’somissionofotherpiecesofMark,suchasthatthepithofthe
longdiscussionofdivorce(Mark10.1–12)isgiveninthelasttwoverses,
13 Ibid.,p.297. 14 Ibid.,pp.289–91.
15 Ibid.,p.290,pickinguponpp.175–8.
6 AnAramaicApproachtoQ
forwhichLukehasanequivalentinanothercontext(Luke16.18).16This
isquitemisleading,foritstillshowsthatLukeleftoutpiecesofMark.
HeisequallyliabletohaveleftoutpiecesofQ.
Most of Streeter’s arguments that very little was omitted from Q by
MatthewandLukeareofnoweightforreasonsofthiskind.Theyalso
presuppose, rather than demonstrate, that Q was a single document.
If it were several documents, Matthew and Luke might have included
materialfromsomedocumentsandnotfromothersbecausetheyeither
knew only some of them, or knew only Greek and not Aramaic, or
because they selected some rather than others until they had sufficient
material, or because they found some documents which fitted their
purposes and others which did not. It follows that the treatment of Q
inthisstandardandinfluentialworkisseriouslydefective.Itomitsany
serious discussion of possible source material in Aramaic, and puts
forward entirely spurious reasons both for considering it one unified
document,andforimaginingitassourcematerialfromwhichMatthew
andLukedidnotomitanythingverymuch.
BurneyincludedQinhisattemptstouncoverJesus’poetry.17Forexam-
ple,hedevotedawholechapterto‘TheUseofParallelismbyOurLord’.18
HavingfirstnotedthisasaformalcharacteristicofHebrewpoetry,19 he
set out many Gospel sayings in such a way as to draw attention to this
featureofthem.BurneyalsoofferedcompleteAramaicreconstructions
ofseveralpassages,includingforexampleMatt.8.20//Luke9.58.20
Burney’s work was, however, vitiated by errors of method. Even the
chapteronparallelismsetsoutGospelpassagesinEnglish,whichunder-
linesthefactthatBurneyneverdemonstratedtheexistenceofAramaic
sources of Q. He has no detailed discussion of passages where the
MattheanandLucanversionsareseriouslydifferent,sohenevertackles
theimplicationsofAramaicphenomenaforourmodelofQ.Forexam-
ple, he notes that Luke 11.47 is different from Matt. 23.29. Having set
outmostoftheMattheanversioninparallellinesinEnglish,allhedoes
aboutthedifferencesistosetouttheLucanversion,alsoinparallelismin
Englishtoo,andhesimplydeclaresthat‘thesecondstichos’summarizes
Matt. 23.30–1.21 This is not sufficient to demonstrate anything. Some
ofthechapteronrhythmconductsthediscussioninEnglishtoo,which
16 Ibid.,p.178.
17 C.F.Burney,ThePoetryofOurLord(Oxford,1925).Foramoregeneralassessment
ofBurney’sworkontheAramaicbackgroundtotheGospels,seeCasey,AramaicSources
ofMark’sGospel,pp.19–22.
18 Burney,Poetry,ch.II. 19 Ibid.,pp.15–22.
20 Ibid.,pp.132,169. 21 Ibid.,p.68,withn.3.
Thestateofplay 7
ismethodologicallyquiteinadequate.Thebriefdiscussionofrhythmin
AramaicpoetryincludesforexampleDan.4.24,butapartfromtherather
arbitrary way in which Burney set it out in lines,22 there is nothing to
suggestthatthisisreallypoetryatall.
BurneyusestheMattheanversionoftheLord’sprayerforareconstruc-
tionwhichissupposedtoconsistoftwofour-beattristichs;theformula
may be said to be two (stanzas)×three (stichoi)×four (beats). This is
saidtohavebeenanaidtomemory.BurneythendeclarestheLucanver-
sionmutilated,andsuggeststhatwecanhardlyhesitateastowhichisthe
more original. Finally, he suggests that it has features of rhyme.23 This
hypothesis,whichneverreceivesproperlydetaileddiscussion,runsfrom
the improbable to the impossible. It is surely improbable that we have
two stanzas, in an orally transmitted poem with no break in the sense,
from a culture not known to have had poems in two four-beat tristichs.
Luke’s opening (cid:9)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:10) must surely go back to Jesus’ rather distinctive
aba, whereas the Matthean version is more conventional. It is surely at
leastasprobablethatLuke’sversionisoriginal,whichupsetsBurney’s
formuladrastically,andunderlinesthefactthatitisBurney’sformula,not
somethingwhichhasarisennaturallyfromthecultureunderstudy.Conse-
quently,thearrangementofthesupposedreconstructionoftheMatthean
versionisnotasatisfactorycriterionfordeterminingauthenticity.
Burney’sdiscussionofrhymeisentirelyspurious.Rhymeshouldnot
beregardedasafeatureofancientSemiticverseatall.Burneybrought
forwardnoevidencethatrhymewasafeatureofAramaicverse.Hedis-
cussedHebrewpoetryinstead,andcommentedthat‘thefewoccurrences
which can be collected seem for the most part to be rather accidental
thandesigned’.24Hisexamplesareindeedallproducedatrandombythe
factthatHebrewwordshavealimitednumberofendings,withtheresult
thatsimilaronesoccasionallyoccurtogetheringroups.Burneyproduced
thesameeffectwithAramaicversionsofselectedsayingsofJesus.His
first example from the Lord’s prayer25 is supposed to have the ending
-a¯ setinstrophe1a,withdebisˇmayya´¯ for(cid:29)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:12)!(cid:25)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:12)!(cid:25),rhymingat
hisstrophe3awithexactlythesameformdebisˇmayya´¯ for"(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:30),
(cid:31)
and rhyming in strophe 3b with bear(cid:31)a´¯. But the first example of aymvbd
isprobablyaMattheanaddition.Burneydoesnotexplainthebehaviour
ofthetranslatorinputtingtwodifferentGreekexpressionsforthesame
Aramaicone,andthewholenotionofthesewordsrhymingreallyonlyre-
flectstheendingoftheAramaicdefinitestate.Finally,someofthewords
22 Ibid.,p.110. 23 Ibid.,pp.112–13,161–2.
24 Ibid.,p.147. 25 Ibid.,pp.112–13,161–2.