For centuries, biblical scholars followed the Augustinian hypothesis: that the Gospel of Matthew was the first to be written, Mark used Matthew in the writing of his, and Lukefollowed both Matthew and Mark in his (the Gospel of John is quite different to the other three, which because of their similarity are called the Synoptic Gospels). Nineteenth-century New Testament scholars who rejected Matthew's priority in favor of Markan priority speculated that Matthew's and Luke's authors drew the material they have in common with the Gospel of Mark from Mark's Gospel. But Matthew and Luke also share large sections of text not found in Mark. They suggested that neither Gospel drew upon the other, but upon a second common source, termed Q.[9][10]
Herbert Marsh, an Englishman, is seen by some as the first person to hypothesize the existence of a "narrative" source and a "sayings" source, although he included in the latter parables unique to Matthew and unique to Luke.[11] In his 1801 work, A dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our Three First Canonical Gospels, he used the Hebrew letter Aleph (א) to denote the narrative source and the letter beth (ב) to denote the sayings source.[12]
The next person to advance the "sayings" hypothesis was the German Friedrich Schleiermacher in 1832. Schleiermacher interpreted an enigmatic statement by the early Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis, circa 125 ("Matthew compiled the oracles (Greek: logia) of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech, and everyone translated them as well he could") as evidence of a separate source. Rather than the traditional interpretation—that Papias was referring to the writing of Matthew in Hebrew—Schleiermacher proposed that Papias was actually referring to a sayings collection of the apostle Matthew that was later used, together with narrative elements, by another "Matthew" and by the otherEvangelists.[13]
In 1838 another German, Christian Hermann Weisse, took Schleiermacher's suggestion of a sayings source and combined it with the idea of Markan priority to formulate what is now called the Two-Source Hypothesis, in which both Matthew and Luke used Mark and the sayings source. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann endorsed this approach in an influential treatment of the synoptic problem in 1863, and the two-source hypothesis has dominated ever since.
At this time, the second source was usually called the Logia, or Logienquelle (logia-source), because of Papias's statement, and Holtzmann gave it the symbol Lambda (Λ). But toward the end of the 19th century, doubts began to grow about the propriety of anchoring its existence to Papias's account. So a neutral symbol Q (which was devised byJohannes Weiss to denote Quelle, meaning source) was adopted to remain neutrally independent of the collection of sayings and its Papian connection.
This two-source hypothesis speculates that Matthew borrowed from both Mark and Q. For most scholars, Q accounts for what Matthew and Luke share — sometimes in exactly the same words — but that are absent in Mark. Examples are the Devil's three temptations of Jesus, the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, and many individual sayings.[14]
In The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924), Burnett Hillman Streeter argued that a third hypothetical source, referred to as M, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke.[15] And some material present only in Luke might have come from an also unknown L source. This four-source hypothesis posits that there were at least four sources to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke: the Gospel of Mark, and three lost sources: Q, M, and L. (M material is represented by green in the above chart.)
Throughout the remainder of the 20th century, there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis. For example, in his 1953 book The Gospel Before Mark,Pierson Parker posited an early version of Matthew (Aramaic M or proto-Matthew) as the primary source.[16] Parker argued that it was not possible to separate Streeter's "M" material from the material in Matthew parallel to Mark.[17][18]
In the early 20th century, more than a dozen reconstructions of Q were made. But these reconstructions differed so much from each other that not a single verse of Matthew was present in all of them. As a result, interest in Q subsided and it was neglected for many decades.
This state of affairs changed in the 1960s after translations of a newly discovered and analogous sayings collection, the Gospel of Thomas, became available. James M. Robinson of the Jesus Seminar and Helmut Koester proposed that collections of sayings such as Q and Gospel of Thomas represented the earliest Christian materials at an early point in a trajectory that eventually resulted in the canonical gospels.
This burst of interest after the Gospel of Thomas's discovery led to increasingly more sophisticated literary reconstructions of Q, and even to redactional speculation, notably in the work of John S. Kloppenborg. Kloppenborg, by analyzing certain literary and thematic phenomena, argued that Q was composed in three stages. In his view, the earliest stage was a collection of wisdom sayings involving such issues as poverty and discipleship. Then, he posits, this collection was expanded by including a layer of judgemental sayings directed against "this generation". The final stage included the Temptation of Jesus narrative.
Although Kloppenborg cautioned against assuming that Q's composition history is the same as the history of the Jesus tradition (i.e., that the oldest layer of Q is necessarily the oldest and pure-layer Jesus tradition), some recent seekers of the Historical Jesus, including members of the Jesus Seminar, have done just that. Basing their reconstructions primarily on the Gospel of Thomas and the oldest layer of Q, they propose that Jesus functioned as a wisdom sage, rather than a Jewish rabbi, though not all members affirm the two-source hypothesis. Kloppenborg is now a fellow of the Jesus Seminar himself.
INTERESTING, NO?..JESUS, WAS, NOT, A JEWISH, RABBI.?..THAT,WOULD,EXPLAIN,A LOT,
OF,PARADOXES.
OF,PARADOXES.
THEN, JUST, WHAT, WAS, HE?..
Q is a fictional character in Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and Star Trek: Voyager, as well as in related products. In all of these programs, he is portrayed by John de Lancie. The name "Q" also applies to all other individuals of the Q Continuum.
Q is said to be omnipotent and is continually evasive regarding his motivations. His home the Q Continuum is accessible to the Q and their guests, and the true nature of it is said to be beyond the comprehension of "lesser beings" such as humans so it is shown to humans only in ways they can understand.
[WIKIPEDIA]
.................HAHAHA! ,LOVE IT!...JEWISH HOLLYWOOD,LOL!...
[HUEY, LOUIE,AND, DEWEY?..
[HUEY, LOUIE,AND, DEWEY?..
Paul’s obvious knowledge of the Jewish scriptures makes the analysis of arsenokoites as referring to shrine prostitution compelling for an objective researcher.
Suppose, however, that such simple logic is set aside in finding the word’s meaning.
In Greek culture, relationships between men (and particularly between a master and his pupil) were common; they were an important theme in literature, and there was a range of very specific Greek words that Paul could have chosen among. The argument has been made that Paul coined a new term because he wanted to condemn more than just, say, pederasty, and his new term avoided using a multitude of specific Greek terms in order to cover the whole subject. This demonstrates both prejudice and a solid ignorance of ancient Greek; Greek also had general words to refer to homosexuality.
Trying to figure out what the word means by looking just at its component parts is linguistically naïve. Of course, at one time the meaning of any compound word did depend on some aspects of the parts, but language change and usage quickly alter and can obscure this. Consider the parts of ‘chairman,’ which did indeed begin with ‘chair’ (meaning ‘throne,’ something it doesn’t mean nowadays) and ‘man’ but now is compounded to produce a very different word that doesn’t necessarily involve either chairs or men.
A case can be (though usually isn’t) made that arsenokoites does apply to homosexuality by using the analogy of some other (mostly very rare) compound words of similar vintage. Arsenokoites – the first part of which means ‘adult male’ – appears to fit neatly within a pattern:
• doulo·koitEs consorter with slaves (slave-bedder) • deuteron·koite to have a bed-fellow (two-bedder) • polu·koitos promiscuity (many-bedder) • homo·koitos
• enOto·koitEsbedfellow (same-bedder)
with ears large enough to sleep in (ears·bed)
Unfortunately for such a scheme, there is already a combination for sex with a male:
• andro·koitEs having intercourse with a man
and it is a feature of languages that they do not create different forms for identical meanings.
In addition, consider the parts of enOto·koitEs. A logical meaning for this word, if the key were analogy to the others in the set, would be something like ‘a person with a (sexual) ear fetish.’ The morphology of a word provides clues to how it was originally made, but in terms of meaning, it only shows how very fertile the process of language creation is. A similar process could produce arseno + koites = man + bed, ≈ man sleeping → couch potato.
Certainly, some aspects of each of the components, ‘male’ and ‘bed,’ were originally present, but a sounder process for finding its meaning would be to make inferences about it from contexts in which it appears. Unfortunately, this has not been very productive either. In 1997 the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae database listed 73 usages of arsenokoites, but most of these appear in contexts similar in pattern and vocabulary to Paul’s lists. None of them indelibly mark the word with a single meaning (though for at least one context the meaning ‘homosexual’ would be impossible). It is both claimed and disputed that the term tends to occur between listings of sexual sins and social sins, which would suggests that the term originally had some sort of relationship to sexual injustice – and all of the usages found are compatible with this interpretation. In all of them the term could indicate subjugation to and/or exploitation by a powerful aggressor, whether in the context of rape or of treatment of slaves – i.e., coercive, non-procreative sex. Still, even this meaning is not absolutely forced on us – and meanings do change with time.
The force of Paul’s warnings very likely were instrumental in helping eliminate temple prostitution. This left behind a word of uncertain meaning that Paul had sternly disapproved of … and audiences were left with filling in the blank. Child molestation, anal/oral intercourse with one’s wife, and masturbation were three topics that certainly, at different times, became associated with the word; the latest simply is (male) homosexuality.
The end result of a lot of research is simply that – in spite of a lot of claims – the meaning of arsenokoites is obscure. One prominent investigator of the meaning ofarsenokoites, Dale Martin of Yale University comments, “I should be clear about my claims here. I am not claiming to know what arsenokoites meant, I am claiming that no one knows what it meant.”
A LITTLE ,KNOWLEDGE,IS, A DANGEROUS, THING.
[IT'S ALL GREEK, TO ME..LOL!]
No comments:
Post a Comment