In Response To: Richard Godwin
On: Lk 5:39
RICHARD: So you say placed as an addition at the
end shown GLuke came before GThomas?--likelihood. I think not. Note
v. 39 is not in Codex Bezae.
BRUCE: Don't understand objection; in particular,
absence in Bezae is confirmatory, not adverse. Herewith restate
1. Bezae preserves at some points a text less
interpolated than the ancestor of Vaticanus. It thus lacks some very early
interpolations (the Western Non). Lk 5:39 fits that pattern (lacking in Bezae),
and is thus not original in Lk, though early interpolated.
2. Lk 5:39 is problematic as it stands, since it
reverses the meaning of what precedes (and what all the Synoptics have). On
those grounds too, it is an interpolation.
3. Marcion (before 150) had generally opposed
Christian reliance on "old" (Jewish) traditions, and in harmony with Lk 5:37-38
in particular, had insisted on the newness of Christianity. This is a position
which may be seen as a development of that of Paul, who denied the efficacy of
the Jewish Law to procure salvation, and Marcion's theology, and canon, are
exclusively Pauline - Luke plus the ten then recognized Pauline Epistles.
Marcion's opponents refused to follow him, preferring to retain the OT
underpinning of Christianity as it was then understood. BIg controversy, still
raging centuries later.
4. Then Lk 5:39 is intelligible as an
anti-Marcionite interpolation in Lk, designed to counter the use being made of
Lk 5:37-38 by Marcion and his followers. I can find no other scenario which
makes sense of the presence of Lk 5:39.
5. Thos 47 unmistakably uses Lk 5:39.
6. Lk 5:39 was not part of Lk until c150 at
7. Then Thos 47, and everything in gThos which is
in that same layer, or in any later later, is later than c150.
Where's the flaw?
E Bruce Brooks
University of Massachusetts at Amherst