From: H. Fred Nofer (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Feb 20 1997 - 18:06:54 EST
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:05:49 +0000 "Brian E. Wilson"
>I would like to know your views, and those of anyone else who cares to
>give theirs, also on the other text which I quoted in Greek. I would
>really hope to understand the Greek better, and quote it again here:
>TOTE EPLHRWQH TO hRHQEN DIA IEREMIOU TOU PROFHTOU LEGONTOJ, KAI
>TO TRIAKONTA ARGURIA, THN TIMHN TOU TETIMHMENOU...
>The reference to - TO TRIAKONTA ARGURIA - is from Zechariah 11.13,
>and is not found in IEREMIAJ. How are we to understand a text in
>Matthew which, like Mk 1.2, says that it is from a book of the Old
>Testament which does not, in fact, contain it? What does the text
>In Mt 27.9, what is the subject of "fulfilled" - EPLHRWQH - ? If it
>not something from Jeremiah, then what was it?
>Never mind what Matthew, or Mark, was, or was not, doing with
>sources! Does the Greek of Mt 27.9, and Mk 1.2, have a meaning?
>Brian E. Wilson
When I wrote my dissertation, I collated from a manuscript whose
descriptive title was "the praxapostolos Gregory 049," a purely
byzantine text of little critical use, at least in the book I worked,
Romans, but the group of books was known as the Acts of the Apostles
because that was the first book in the group that was apparently
circulated as a "package.". I understand that the Babylonian Talmud
placed Jeremiah first in its grouping of the prophets, which included
Zechariah from which much of Matt. 27:9 seems to loosely quote
(11:12-13), though some of the concepts of Jeremiah 19:1, 4, 6, 11 seem
also to be present. Could Matthew be using the name Jeremiah as my group
of mss. used praxapostolos? Something like this may also be the
explanation for the Mark 1:2 passage. FWIW.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:06 EDT