An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series)

218 Pages·2002·6.45 MB·English

by  Maurice Casey

AN ARAMAIC APPROACH TO Q
This is the first book to examine the Aramaic dimension of Q
sincetheAramaicDeadSeascrollsmadesuchworkmorefeasible.
MauriceCaseygivesadetailedexaminationofMatthew23.23–36
andLuke11.39–51anddemonstratesthattheevangelistsusedtwo
differentGreektranslationsofanAramaicsource,whichcanbere-
constructed.HeoverturnstheconventionalmodelofQasasingle
Greekdocument,andshowsthatJesussaideverythingintheorig-
inalAramaicsource.HisfurtheranalysisofMatthew11.2–19and
Luke7.18–35showstheevangelistseditingoneGreektranslation
ofanAramaicsource.ThesameistrueofMatthew12.22–32//Luke
11.14–23, for which Mark (3.20–31) utilised a different Aramaic
source. A complex model of Q is thus proposed. Casey offers a
compellingargumentthatAramaicsourcesbehindpartofQareof
extremelyearlydate,andshouldmakeasignificantcontributionto
thequestofthehistoricalJesus.
MAURICE CASEY isProfessorofNewTestamentLanguagesand
Literature at the Department of Theology of the University of
Nottingham. He is a member of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti
Societas and the author of Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel
(CambridgeUniversityPress,1998).
SOCIETY FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
MONOGRAPH SERIES
GeneralEditor:RichardBauckham
122
AN ARAMAIC APPROACH TO Q
An Aramaic Approach to Q
SourcesfortheGospelsofMatthewandLuke
MAURICE CASEY
UniversityofNottingham
  
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge  , United Kingdom
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521817233
© Maurice Casey 2002
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format 2002
isbn--13 978-0-511-06115-8 eBook (NetLibrary)
isbn--10 0-511-06115-3 eBook (NetLibrary)
isbn--13 978-0-521-81723-3 hardback
isbn--10 0-521-81723-4 hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
s for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
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
PREFACE
Thisbookwaswrittenin1994–99.In1994–96,IheldaBritishAcademy
ResearchReadershipawardedformetowriteAramaicSourcesofMark’s
Gospel (SNTS.MS 102. Cambridge, 1998), as well as this book. The
publicationoftherestoftheAramaicDeadSeascrollsin1994enabled
more fruitful work to be done than I had planned, but at the same time
it ruined the proposed timetable for completing the two books. I am
extremelygratefultotheAcademyforthisaward,whichenabledmeto
complete a major piece of research, including all the Aramaic for this
book as well as the previous one. Other duties and engagements have
contributedtothesubsequentdelay.
Iamalsogratefultoallthosewhohavediscussedwithmetheproblems
ofmethodandofdetailwhichthisworkhasentailed.Ieffectivelybegan
this research while reading for a doctorate at Durham University under
ProfessorC.K.Barrett,whoseextraordinarycombinationoflearningand
helpfulnesswithlackofbureaucracyorinterferenceremainsamodelto
which one can only aspire. I would particularly like to thank also the
lateProfessorM.Black,ProfessorG.J.Brooke,ProfessorB.D.Chilton,
ProfessorJ.A.Fitzmyer,ProfessorM.D.Goulder,ProfessorR.Kearns,
the late Professor B. Lindars, Professor M. Mu¨ller, Professor C. M.
Tuckett and Professor M. Wilcox. I would also like to thank members
oftheAramaicBackgroundandHistoricalJesusseminarsatSNTS,the
Jesus seminar at meetings of British New Testament scholars, and an
annual seminar on the Use of the Old Testament in the New now gen-
erally held at Hawarden, for what I have learnt from them. I alone am
responsibleforwhatIhavesaid.
IwouldalsoliketothankProfessorA.C.Thiselton,HeadoftheDepart-
mentofTheologyattheUniversityofNottingham1992–2000,forhisim-
partialandunfailingsupportofwork;myNottinghamcolleaguesDrR.H.
BellandRabbiDrS.D.Kuninformanyhoursspentsortingoutproblems
with the word processors on which these books were written; and the
libraries of Durham University, St Andrews University, SOAS and the
BritishLibraryforthefacilitiesnecessaryforadvancedscholarlywork.
ix
ABBREVIATIONS
Most abbreviations are standard. Those for biblical books follow the
recommendations of CUP; those for periodicals and series of mono-
graphsfollowS.Schwertner,InternationalGlossaryofAbbreviationsfor
TheologyandRelatedSubjects(BerlinandNewYork,1974);mostothers
follow the recommendations for contributors to the Journal of Biblical
Literature117(1998).Othersareasfollows:
ABRL AnchorBibleReferenceLibrary
ANRW H.TemporiniandW.Haase(eds.),AufstiegundNiedergang
derro¨mischenWelt(manyvols.,Berlin,1972–).
cur Curetonian
DSD DeadSeaDiscoveries
ET EnglishTranslation
hark Harklean
JSP JournalfortheStudyofthePseudepigrapha
JSP.S Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement
Series
MPIL MonographsofthePeshittaInstitute,Leiden
palsyrlec PalestinianSyriacLectionary
sin SinaiticSyriac
x
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.