Commenting on Matthew 6:22, Blomberg writes:
[Note] 76: “ 'Good' is actually the more specific word , [haplous] implying single-minded devotion and/or generosity."
Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) (p. 135). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
I think the context of Matthew 6:22 also supports this understanding of the text (Mt. 6:24-33).
On the other hand, Zerwick-Grosvenor take haplous in 6:22 to mean "simple, unmixed, clear/clear-sighted" when used of the eye in contrast to an eye that is poneros (possibly unhealthy or not clear-sighted).
From Vincent's Word Studies:
"Single (ἁπλοῦς)
The picture underlying this adjective is that of a piece of cloth or other material, neatly folded once, and without a variety of complicated folds. Hence the idea of simplicity or singleness (compare simplicity from the Latin simplex; semel, once; plicare, to fold). So, in a moral sense, artless, plain, pure. Here sound, as opposed to evil or diseased. Possibly with reference to the double-mindedness and indecision condemned in Matthew 6:24."
See BDAG, page 91.
10 comments:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3267152
There have been interesting studies looking at this verse from a semetic linguistic standpoint. Specifically by the Jerusalem school of synoptic studies who believe that some form of proto-Luke was in Hebrew, it's a strange theory but they look for semeticisms all over the place and find some.
That was covered at the Lindsey 2015 Conference, but that does not eliminate the Hellenistic color of the text & I am not a big fan of Q in the way it is generally promoted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEa2U1QtcwU
Yeah, there we go, I haven't really followed the Jerusalem school, the more I read about it the more it seems it's just a really complicated two source theory that recognizes the Semiticisms.
Q scholarship is all over the place these days, you have the stripped down minimal Q (the ciritical Q edition) you have expanded Q, you have Q as a logoi gospel, Q as a narrative, Q as a kind of collection of traditions.
For me, I think that some version of the two source theory must be correct, i.e. Mark and Q, but I think any reconstruction of Q is going to be extremely tentative and one should not have any confidence that any reconstruction represents any pre Lukan/Matthean document.
Personally, I really like Casey's speculation that Q was the original Matthew and that it was literally just Matthew writing down Jesus's sayings. Of course this is just speculation, and it can't be proven, but it would at least fit what we have and take into account Papias (Casey and others also have shown signs of Aramaic sources of the sayings).
But I agree, with you about Luke, whatever his source he wrote it for a Greek audience.
There's always two questions when it comes to the synoptic materials: what can this tell us about the Gospel author's intentions and his audience's understanding, and what can it tell us about the historical Jesus ... which should take priority is also an interesting theological question.
Here's a website by on scholar who takes an expansive Q approach, and considers Q to be a narrative document, a lot of good resources here:
http://www.reconstructingq.com/
Thanks. Line B on last page is interesting. http://reconstructingq.com/gospel-of-the-hebrews.pdf
Another take on Q - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq8RawiqAAM
That article was really fascinating on the Gospel of the Hebrews ... I mean ... I would love it to be true, it would make things really exciting, and really push synoptic scholarship forward, but it's all pretty and tentative.
I think the most we can ever really do is shrug our shoulders and say "Maybe," I mean I think there must have been a Q, and if one leaves open the idea that Q and and Mark's sources had semeticisms, or even preserved Aramaic (or Hebrew) traditions, a big argument in favor of the Jerusalem school is taken care of.
I saw the James Tabor interview, that's more or less the standard 2 source position, which is more or less what I take.
Post a Comment