Matthean Posteriority: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Did Lukan redaction influence Matthew 23:37?)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Matthean Posteriority: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Did Lukan redaction influence Matthew 23:37?)

Post by gryan »

Re: In a History Valley debate, Mark Goodacre showed his virtue as a dispassionate student of the evidence when he agreed with Dr. Robert K. MacEwen that this parallel points toward Matthean Posteriority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE5UOisT8AY

Luke 13:34
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
who kills the prophets
and stones those sent to her,
how often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings,
but you were unwilling!

Ἱερουσαλὴμ Ἱερουσαλήμ,
ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας
καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν,
ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυνάξαι τὰ τέκνα σου ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις τὴν ἑαυτῆς νοσσιὰν ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας,
καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε.

Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
who kills the prophets
and stones those sent to her,
how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings,
but you were unwilling!

Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ,
ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας
καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν,
ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυναγαγεῖν τὰ τέκνα σου, ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις ἐπισυνάγει τὰ νοσσία αὐτῆς ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας, καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε.

It appears that Matthew copied Luke because:
1) As Robert K. MacEwen explains, the use of the double vocative is characteristic of Luke, not Matthew.
2) Mark Goodacre, agreed, and added that there are two ways of spelling of Jerusalem.
Matthew normally uses a spelling that Luke seldom uses:
https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2414.htm

"Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ" is a spelling usually used by Luke, but never by Matthew, except here:
https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2419.htm

------------------

I doubt that this adds to the debate, but I also note that Paul used both spellings in Galatians.

Matthew's preferred spelling appears in the travel narrative:

Galatians 1:17 "did I go up to Jerusalem to those"

Galatians 1:18 "I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas"

Galatians 2:1 "I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas"

Luke's preferred spelling, Ἱερουσαλήμ (indeclinable), appears in the Galatians allegory that contrasts Jerusalem above and Jerusalem below, painting Jerusalem below a bad light:

Galatians 4:25
GRK: τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ δουλεύει γὰρ
NAS: to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery

Galatians 4:26 N
GRK: δὲ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν
NAS: But the Jerusalem above is free;

On connotation: Luke's preferred Ἱερουσαλήμ is the Hebraic and LXX spelling and often has sacred connotations, whereas Mark, Matt and John's preferred spelling, Ἱεροσόλυμα, is the profane designation used more by Gentile writers and Jews addressing a Greek-speaking audience (according to Longenecker, Commentary on Galatians).
Last edited by gryan on Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:56 am, edited 10 times in total.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Matthean Posteriority: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Luke 13:34–35 influenced Matthew 23:37–39)

Post by Ken Olson »

gryan wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:32 am Re: Dr. Mark Goodacre shows his virtue as a dispassionate student of the evidence when he agrees with Dr. Robert K. MacEwen that this parallel points toward Matthean Posteriority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE5UOisT8AY

Luke 13:34
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
who kills the prophets
and stones those sent to her,
how often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings,
but you were unwilling!

Ἱερουσαλὴμ Ἱερουσαλήμ,
ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας
καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν,
ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυνάξαι τὰ τέκνα σου ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις τὴν ἑαυτῆς νοσσιὰν ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας,
καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε.

Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
who kills the prophets
and stones those sent to her,
how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings,
but you were unwilling!

Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ,
ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας
καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν,
ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυναγαγεῖν τὰ τέκνα σου, ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις ἐπισυνάγει τὰ νοσσία αὐτῆς ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας, καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε.

It appears that Matthew copied Luke because:
1) As Robert K. MacEwen explains, the use of the double vocative is characteristic of Luke, not Matthew.
2) Mark Goodacre, agreed, and added that there are two ways of spelling of Jerusalem.
Matthew normally uses a spelling that Luke seldom uses:
https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2414.htm

This is a spelling usually used by Luke, but never by Matthew, except here:
https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2419.htm
Mark Goodacre does not quite say that the case of Jerusalem, Jerusalem in Matt 23.37 / Luke 13.34 points toward Matthean Posteriority and he offers an explanation of it from his perspective on the Farrer theory (at the 56-58 minute mark in the video). I have previously responded to the case for Luke's priority to Matthew in Matt 23.37/Luke 13.34 (along with three other cases of claimed Lukan priority) on this forum here:

viewtopic.php?p=121790#p121790

Best,

Ken
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Matthean Posteriority: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Luke 13:34–35 influenced Matthew 23:37–39)

Post by gryan »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:22 pm Mark Goodacre does not quite say that the case of Jerusalem, Jerusalem in Matt 23.37 / Luke 13.34 points toward Matthean Posteriority and he offers an explanation of it from his perspective on the Farrer theory (at the 56-58 minute mark in the video).
Ok, point well taken. Goodacre says: "This isn't an argument for the Farrer theory, this is just how I'm explaining the data in the light of the Farrer theory. You know there's arguments for the theory and then there is data that the theory needs to explain. This is one of the latter. The double vocatives that you are talking about in the main, the ones that are really characteristic of Luke are personal ones within narratives. So it's "Martha, Martha", it's "Master, Master", it's "Saul, Saul", in Acts 9. It's usually a narrative where one character is speaking to another character and using their name, which is a little bit different from the "Jerusalem, Jerusalem" which is in a sayings piece. I'm not using that as an argument for Farrer. I'm just saying that's how I would explain that..."

And, Ken Olson, I see that you get into the weeds of Matthew's unusual usage here:
"Ἱεροσόλυμα (Matt 11, Mark 9, Luke 5, John 12, Acts 19; Gal 3)
Ἰερουσαλὴμ (Matt 2, Mark 1, Luke 27?, John 0, Acts 41?; Rom 4, 1 Cor 1, Gal. 2, Heb 1, Rev 3)

The argument here is that, where we find word (or phrase) X in evangelist A only at locations where it is paralleled by evangelist B, but evangelist B also has it in other locations, this indicates evangelist A has taken X from evangelist B or they have a common source for X.
The problem with such one way indicators is that they can be found pointing in both directions. One well known example used to illustrate the point is “Your faith has saved you” which is in Mark 5.34, 10.52, and which Luke has in parallel cases in Luke 8.48, 17.19, but also in 7.50, 18.42. This is generally taken to mean Luke re-used an expression he liked from from Mark, rather than that Mark used Luke or that we must postulate a common miracle source for the two evangelists containing all the uses of the expression.

Goulder has compiled a list of 17 such expressions that occur in Luke only where Matthew has a parallel, but additional times in Matthew (“wailing and gnashing of teeth,” “brood of vipers,” and “little faith” being three of the most recognizable). In those cases, scholars who accept Q argue that Matthew found those expression in Q and re-used them. Goulder points out that (1) there are a more of these indicators going from Matthew=>Luke than vice versa, (2) the ones he has pointed out are unusual and striking expressions not found elsewhere in the NT (or earlier Greek literature in the case of “little faith”), and, perhaps most importantly, that if Matthew is taking the language he inserts redactionally elsewhere from Q, then the fact that language is known Matthean redaction cannot be used to say it wasn’t in Q in places where Matthew and Luke have different wording.

Neither of the two spellings of Jerusalem are at all rare or striking. They both occur multiple times elsewhere in the NT (and in other literature). Luke 13.34 is not the only place Mat could have gotten that spelling of Jerusalem. It’s also in Mark. The theory that Matthew must have depended on Q or Luke for the spelling of Jerusalem he used in in 23.37 is uncompelling.

Then the question is why Matt might have used a spelling for Jerusalem in Matt 23.37 that differs from his usual one. Any such explanation calls for some speculation. We should note that in Matt 23.37, Jesus is addressing the city of Jerusalem directly. He’s speaking to it, not of it. This unusual form of address to a city is also found in the woe to the unrepentant cities in Matt 11.21 “Woe to you Chorasin! Woe to you Bethsaida!” (= Luke 10.13), which is also a case of Jesus acting as a prophet of foretelling disaster for cities.

...I suspect it more likely that Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem was meant to recall David’s repetition of Absalom’s name in his lament over his son in 2 Sam. 18.33, 19.4 [Υἱέ μου Ἀβεσσαλώμ, Ἀβεσσαλὼμ υἱὲ μου]."

Ken Olson: This was an impressive effort!
viewtopic.php?p=121790#p121790

On another note, Ken Olson, I noticed Goodacre mentioned an article that you wrote. Could you tell us a little about what that article said?

Also, Goodacre said he didn't like characterizing the Farrer theory with a particular word he disliked. I couldn't tell what word he was saying. Somehow my sound was fussy at that point. Do you know the word?
Last edited by gryan on Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Matthean Posteriority: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Luke 13:34–35 influenced Matthew 23:37–39)

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:32 am Re: Dr. Mark Goodacre shows his virtue as a dispassionate student of the evidence when he agrees with Dr. Robert K. MacEwen that this parallel points toward Matthean Posteriority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE5UOisT8AY

Luke 13:34
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
who kills the prophets
and stones those sent to her,
how often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings,
but you were unwilling!

Ἱερουσαλὴμ Ἱερουσαλήμ,
ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας
καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν,
ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυνάξαι τὰ τέκνα σου ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις τὴν ἑαυτῆς νοσσιὰν ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας,
καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε.

Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
who kills the prophets
and stones those sent to her,
how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings,
but you were unwilling!

Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ,
ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας
καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν,
ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυναγαγεῖν τὰ τέκνα σου, ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις ἐπισυνάγει τὰ νοσσία αὐτῆς ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας, καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε.

It appears that Matthew copied Luke because:
1) As Robert K. MacEwen explains, the use of the double vocative is characteristic of Luke, not Matthew.
2) Mark Goodacre, agreed, and added that there are two ways of spelling of Jerusalem.
Matthew normally uses a spelling that Luke seldom uses:
https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2414.htm

This is a spelling usually used by Luke, but never by Matthew, except here:
https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2414.htm

------------------

Not sure if this adds to the debate, but I also note that Paul used both spellings in Galatians.

Matthew's preferred spelling appears here, in the travel narrative:

Galatians 1:17 "did I go up to Jerusalem to those"

Galatians 1:18 "I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas"

Galatians 2:1 "I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas"

Luke's preferred spelling appears here, in an allegory that contrasts Jerusalem above and Jerusalem below, painting Jerusalem below a bad light:

Galatians 4:25
GRK: τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ δουλεύει γὰρ
NAS: to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery


Galatians 4:26 N
GRK: δὲ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν
NAS: But the Jerusalem above is free;
What is Luke but Marcion redacted?
Vinzent remarked that Kloppenburg approached him after CISSR 2022 and said "you have ruined my life's work" - as Vinzent rightly states that Marcion removes the entire need for Q.
People who argue that Luke depends on Matthew are correct.
People who argue that Matthew depends on Luke are correct.
Because it was Matthew who redacted Marcion into Luke, and as such Matthew usually has the upper hand - yet sometimes he slavishly follows "Luke", making verbatim copies of him.
After all, if you redact a text into another one you are usually pleased with the result, aren't you? Even when you write another text after that

In general, Matthew always has the more finished version, changing only a word or two to Mark or Luke, really adding a finishing touch. Matthean priority proved to be a simple given during my 72 logia, although there were plenty exceptions to that rule where it either couldn't be established or where Luke was a verbatim copy of Thomas with Matthew being a verbatim copy of either. But this is a simple case not of either-or, but of and-and: both use from both, even if we disregard later harmonisations of Luke to Matthew

On topic: the evidence is not very convincing, really. You may want to check Sinaiticus:

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/sear ... &x=49&y=13

And Luke and Acts take the stage there for sure, and Matthew likes to use ϊεροϲολυμα in Sinaiticus; yet in Matthew 23:37 he uses the abbreviated ιηλμ:

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu ... omSlider=0

Luke 13:34 there?

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu ... omSlider=0

Not an abbreviation - so what kind of evidence is this?
How many MSS have been compared this way, has this been corrected for Sinaiticus?

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/sear ... &x=55&y=16

shows 67 ϊεροϲολυμ, 82 ϊερουϲαλημ.
Bezae has 11 ϊεροϲολυμ for Matthew, 44 ϊεροϲολυμ in total, 59 ϊερουσαλημ in total - and of course these 2 MSS have completely different content.
Luke 13:34 in Bezae? ϊερουσαλημ ϊερουσαλημ
Matthew 23:37 in Bezae? ϊερουσαλημ ϊερουσαλημ

On par there for Goodacre.
Yet just going by Berean there are two odd ones out in Luke:

Luke 2:22 Καὶ (And) ὅτε (when) ἐπλήσθησαν (were fulfilled) αἱ (the) ἡμέραι (days) τοῦ (of the) καθαρισμοῦ (purification) αὐτῶν (of them) κατὰ (according to) τὸν (the) νόμον (law) Μωϋσέως (of Moses), ἀνήγαγον (they brought) αὐτὸν (Him) εἰς (to) Ἱεροσόλυμα (Jerusalem), παραστῆσαι (to present) τῷ (to the) Κυρίῳ (Lord)

Luke 13:22 Καὶ (And) διεπορεύετο (He was going through) κατὰ (by) πόλεις (towns) καὶ (and) κώμας (villages), διδάσκων (teaching), καὶ (and) πορείαν (progress) ποιούμενος (making) εἰς (toward) Ἱεροσόλυμα (Jerusalem).

It's not that easy, I think...

NA28 doesn't count variants here, alas
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Matthean Posteriority: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Luke 13:34–35 influenced Matthew 23:37–39)

Post by gryan »

Re: "In general, Matthew always has the more finished version, changing only a word or two to Mark or Luke, really adding a finishing touch. Matthean priority proved to be a simple given..."

mlinssen : Did you mean to write "Matthean posteriority"?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Matthean Posteriority: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Luke 13:34–35 influenced Matthew 23:37–39)

Post by Ken Olson »

gryan wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:59 pm On another note, Ken Olson, I noticed Goodacre mentioned an article that you wrote. Could you tell us a little about what that article said?

Also, Goodacre said he didn't like characterizing the Farrer theory with a particular word he disliked. I couldn't tell what word he was saying. Somehow my sound was fussy at that point. Do you know the word?
The article Mark Goodacre referred to was this one:

Ken Olson, ‘Unpicking on the Farrer Theory’, in Questioning Q, edited by Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin (2004)127-150

It’s a shorter version of my University of Maryland Master’s Thesis, ‘How Luke Was Written’, which is available online here:

https://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/hand ... sAllowed=y

In a nutshell, I’m responding to F. G Downing’s influential article ‘Towards a Rehabilitation of Q’, New Testament Studies 11 (1964) 169-181. Downing argued that four pericopes in the gospels (all drawn from what B. H. Streeter termed the ‘Mark Q overlaps’) pose a serious problem for the Farrer theory. For Farrer’s Luke to have derived his version of these passages from Matthew, he would have to have gone through the text of Matthew and removed nearly all of the material where Matthew was following Mark and kept nearly all of the material that Matthew added to Mark. He reasons that this is an extremely difficult and inexplicable procedure and, since Luke’s version is basically Matthew’s additions to Mark, it is better explained by Luke using Matthew’s other source (i.e., Q).

I examine Downing’s argument. I agree with Downing that the procedure he attributes to Farrer’s Luke would be difficult and inexplicable. Then I examine the four pericopes he treats to see how much Markan material that Matthew used is then also used by Luke and how much of Matthew’s additional material is used by Luke and how much is discarded. The problem with Downing’s generalization that Luke must have discarded Matthew’s Markan material and kept his additional material is that there are far too many exceptions to Downing’s description for it to be useful. Luke keeps a good bit of the Matthean material where Matthew is following Mark and he discards a good bit of the Matthean material that Matthew is adding to Mark. The problem with Downing’s argument is that, while the procedure Downing attributes to Farrer’s Luke would be difficult and inexplicable, the data do not show that Farrer's Luke is following any such procedure.

Two things that I realized after the article was published:

First, Downing does not use the word ‘Unpicking’ for the procedure he attributes to Farrer’s Luke in the 1964 ‘Rehabilitation’ article, but introduced it in his later work.

Second, there was not a lot of detailed work on the Farrer theory at the time Downing had published and Downing seems to have assumed that, in the four pericopes he examines, the Farrer theory postulated that Matthew had conflated the Markan versions of those passages with parallel versions he found in a second source (as the Two Document hypothesis holds). His argument presumed the existence of this second source and he was arguing that it is more likely Luke used the second source rather than using Matthew directly. The idea that Luke did not have a second source containing other versions of those pericopes (at least not continuous or written versions) was not on his radar in 1964.

Since Downing, critics of the Farrer theory have regularly spoken of how the Farrer theory presumes that Luke ‘unpicked’ Mark from his use of Matthew. Some, including Christopher Tuckett and Alan Garrow, even claim that Luke must have remove *all* the Markan material from his use of Matthew. (Downing had not gone that far. He knew there were exceptions, but downplayed their significance).

I’ve also discussed Downing’s ‘Unpicking’ argument with Ian Mills on his New Testament Review podcast:

https://podtail.com/en/podcast/new-test ... tion-of-q/

I have a response to Alan Garrow and his misuse of the term ‘Unpicking’ here:

https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... y-Retirem/

Garrow must have been quite shocked when Downing published an article claiming that, on the theory that Matthew wrote third (i.e., the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis), which Garrow holds, Matthew must have ‘unpicked’ Luke. Garrow correctly saw the problems with Downing’s ‘unpicking’ argument as it pertained to his own theory, but failed to grasp how his own criticisms of downing undermined Downing’s criticism of the Farrer theory.

(Apparently that direct link won’t work, but it will take you to a page that has a link to the post that does work - look for 'Mandatory Retirement').

Best,

Ken
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Matthean Posteriority: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Luke 13:34–35 influenced Matthew 23:37–39)

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:02 pm Re: "In general, Matthew always has the more finished version, changing only a word or two to Mark or Luke, really adding a finishing touch. Matthean priority proved to be a simple given..."

mlinssen : Did you mean to write "Matthean posteriority"?
Oh that's painful, thank you gryan.
Yes I did, I'm really not used to using the word posteriority
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Matthean Posteriority: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Luke 13:34–35 influenced Matthew 23:37–39)

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:58 pm (Apparently that direct link won’t work, but it will take you to a page that has a link to the post that does work - look for 'Mandatory Retirement').

Best,

Ken
https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... %9d%90%a6/

It looks like the direct URL that wordpress takes must be URL encoded as the above.
Try

https://www.url-encode-decode.com/

and you'll see that this actually indeed is

https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... 𝐲-𝐑𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦/

Maybe you're using Yoast SEO, but I advise to check the permalink to this particular blog post
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Matthean Posteriority: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Luke 13:34–35 influenced Matthew 23:37–39)

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

gryan wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:59 pm And, Ken Olson, I see that you get into the weeds of Matthew's unusual usage here:
"Ἱεροσόλυμα (Matt 11, Mark 9, Luke 5, John 12, Acts 19; Gal 3)
Ἰερουσαλὴμ (Matt 2, Mark 1, Luke 27?, John 0, Acts 41?; Rom 4, 1 Cor 1, Gal. 2, Heb 1, Rev 3)
Mark (10) and John used only Ἱεροσόλυμα. Mark 11:1 still has the late Byzantine reading variant Ἱερουσαλήμ, but all the great ancient codices agree on Ἱεροσόλυμα (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Bezae, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Washingtonianus).
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Matthean Posteriority: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Luke 13:34–35 influenced Matthew 23:37–39)

Post by mlinssen »

I was bored and went through Bezae:

MATTHEW
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμων
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμων
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ

JOHN
ϊεροσολυμοις
ϊεροσολυμοις
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμοις
ϊεροσολυμειτων
ϊεροσολυμοις
ϊεροσολυμων
ϊεροσολυμων
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊερουσαλημ
LUKE
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊεροσολυμοις
ϊερουερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
MARK
ϊεροσολυμειτε
ϊεροσολυμων
ϊεροσολυμων
ϊεροσολυμων
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ACTS
ϊεροσολυμων
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊεροσολυμοις
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊεροσολυμων
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊεροσολυμοις
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμα
ϊεροσολυμοις

ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ
ϊερουσαλημ

So much knowledge available with so little effort.
Few odd ones out there; do note that the highlighting reflects only the specific gospel itself, and doesn't highlight identical forms

Thank you Kunigunde

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/2167/1/Bezae-Greek.xml
Post Reply