Re: POLLOI in Luke 1:1 (long)

Thomas Kopecek (kopecekt@central.edu)
Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:16:11 +0000

Ben Crick wrote:
>
> On Wed 12 Nov 97 (20:38:23 +1100), bwpowers@eagles.bbs.net.au wrote:
> ["long" bit snipped]
> > There is much more to it, of course: such as the identification of the
> > LOGIA of Papias with the circulating collection of Matthew's pericopes
> > which he wrote in Aramaic, and the way this accounts for the contents
> > and order of the pericopes in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But let this
> > suffice as a presentation of a way of understanding the POLLOI and
> > other key Greek terms of Luke 1:1-4.
>
> Dear Ward:
>
> I am delighted to read of your Matthew shorthand thesis. John Wenham
> mentions something similar in his /Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke/, Hodder
> & Stoughton, 1991, without going into much detail. He refers to EJ Goodspeed,
> /Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist/, Winston, Philadelphia, 1959: which he calls
> "an undeservedly neglected book".

[snip]

Normally, when maing tax reports, Matthew would then
> translate his notes into Greek and send them to Rome.

Before this thread gets ruled out of bounds (no doubt rightly), might I
ask for a clarification? Are you assuming Matthew was a Galilean tax
collector? If so, why would he be sending notes to Rome rather than to
the client-king of Galilee, for whom he was collecting taxes? Please
reply off-list if Carl or Edward is lowering the boom :-).

It would therefore be
> natural for him to translate his own notes taken during Christ's ministry
> into Greek after Pentecost when 'this gospel was to be preached in all the
> world' (Matt 26:13). The early Fathers date it eight or ten years after the
> resurrection. This would be during the expansion beyond Samaria into the
> Greek world; Matthew would see the necessity as indicated in Matthew 28:12-20,
> 'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to observe
> all things whatever I gave to you in command'.
>
> "It comes as a surprise to learn from Roman records that Matthew would be
> taking it all down in shorthand-- a tax collector's shorthand script. Then he
> would rewrite it in the vernacular (Aramaic), then translate it into a Greek
> report to Rome. Is that why we get the fullest records of Christ's brilliant
> preaching from Matthew? Rome had a very elaborate and detailed tax system
> so that no one would escape.

Perhaps, but where is the evidence that tax collectors of client-kings
were directly a part of the various tax collecting systems either of
imperial or promagisterial provinces? I'm not claiming there is no such
evidence; offhand I simply don't know what it is.

Best, Tom Kopecek

There were 111 categories of tax. As a tax
> collector Levi (an appropriate name before he became a disciple) would have
> full particulars -- long before he became Matthew -- of every household."
> (Pearce, /Op cit./, pp 130f).
>
> In Christ,
> --
> Revd Ben Crick, BA CF
> <ben.crick@argonet.co.uk>
> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
> http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm