06-03-2008, 07:46 AM
[p.133; 134; 130, Synoptics]
First of all, came the Semitic Matthew, which contained both the discourses and the works of Jesus; it was also the principal, if not the only source from which flowed the ???many??? little streams and rivulets of information at the time of Luke ???..
Third in form though not in content, comes our Greek Matthew, which is substantially the same as the Semitic Matthew; but its Greek shows the influence of Mark and Luke for the reasons and to the extent noted above ???..
Historical evidence shows us that chronologically the first of the Synoptics is Matthew???s Semitic writing, corresponding substantially to our Greek Matthew, and that the second is Mark, and the third Luke. But we have also noted that these three writings had a previous history, represented by approximately twenty-five years of oral catechesis, which is mirrored in them from different angles (?? 110). Then, too, we pointed out that the author of the last synoptic had available many previous writings on the same subject which he himself used, though with the object of adding somewhat to their content (?? 140). In fact, there existed still other data outside of these categories, since a few decades after the appearance of the three Synoptics and the ???many??? anonymous writings, the Gospel of John was composed, which contains a great deal of new information. Now how did it happen that out of this sea of facts, which has been explored so little as far as we are concerned, the three Synoptics took almost always the very same pearls and no others, and in addition arranged them always in the same setting? In other words, what is the reason for the striking harmony of the three Synoptics ???..
Among the Semites memory training was a most important part of education in general and of religious instruction in particular. For long periods abundant teaching was entrusted to the memory alone and only later set in writing. Among the many examples we might quote, it is enough here to mention one which is not Hebrew, but is a classic Semitic example, nevertheless, and of a later date than the Gospels, and that is the Koran. This was not written by Mohammed; for about a generation its contents were entrusted to the memory of his disciples but preserved with verbal fidelity. Hence one theory is that something of the same nature occurred in the case of the Synoptics: they all derived from a body of oral teachings worded in a specific manner, namely, the catechesis of the Apostles, which each of them put in writing with varying degrees of completeness but with verbal fidelity, something like the way in which the Talmud was composed (???? 87, 106) ???..
Yet, while we cannot deny the importance of the memory among the Semites in general and in early Christian catechesis too, this explanation seems a little too elementary and mechanical. We should have to suppose ??? if we may use a modern comparison ??? a rich series of imaginary phonograph records, each corresponding to a particular section of this early catechesis, which were made to play from time to time with mechanical precision. And who made this imaginary recording? The college of Apostles, certainly. And in what language? Surely in Aramaic, then the prevailing tongue in Palestine.
First of all, came the Semitic Matthew, which contained both the discourses and the works of Jesus; it was also the principal, if not the only source from which flowed the ???many??? little streams and rivulets of information at the time of Luke ???..
Third in form though not in content, comes our Greek Matthew, which is substantially the same as the Semitic Matthew; but its Greek shows the influence of Mark and Luke for the reasons and to the extent noted above ???..
Historical evidence shows us that chronologically the first of the Synoptics is Matthew???s Semitic writing, corresponding substantially to our Greek Matthew, and that the second is Mark, and the third Luke. But we have also noted that these three writings had a previous history, represented by approximately twenty-five years of oral catechesis, which is mirrored in them from different angles (?? 110). Then, too, we pointed out that the author of the last synoptic had available many previous writings on the same subject which he himself used, though with the object of adding somewhat to their content (?? 140). In fact, there existed still other data outside of these categories, since a few decades after the appearance of the three Synoptics and the ???many??? anonymous writings, the Gospel of John was composed, which contains a great deal of new information. Now how did it happen that out of this sea of facts, which has been explored so little as far as we are concerned, the three Synoptics took almost always the very same pearls and no others, and in addition arranged them always in the same setting? In other words, what is the reason for the striking harmony of the three Synoptics ???..
Among the Semites memory training was a most important part of education in general and of religious instruction in particular. For long periods abundant teaching was entrusted to the memory alone and only later set in writing. Among the many examples we might quote, it is enough here to mention one which is not Hebrew, but is a classic Semitic example, nevertheless, and of a later date than the Gospels, and that is the Koran. This was not written by Mohammed; for about a generation its contents were entrusted to the memory of his disciples but preserved with verbal fidelity. Hence one theory is that something of the same nature occurred in the case of the Synoptics: they all derived from a body of oral teachings worded in a specific manner, namely, the catechesis of the Apostles, which each of them put in writing with varying degrees of completeness but with verbal fidelity, something like the way in which the Talmud was composed (???? 87, 106) ???..
Yet, while we cannot deny the importance of the memory among the Semites in general and in early Christian catechesis too, this explanation seems a little too elementary and mechanical. We should have to suppose ??? if we may use a modern comparison ??? a rich series of imaginary phonograph records, each corresponding to a particular section of this early catechesis, which were made to play from time to time with mechanical precision. And who made this imaginary recording? The college of Apostles, certainly. And in what language? Surely in Aramaic, then the prevailing tongue in Palestine.