... Lk 11:27-28 is self-referring to Lk 1:38,47 demonstrating that those like his mother Mary are truly blessed who give positive responses to God s word.Message 1 of 3 , Jul 31, 2002View Source--- Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
> Leonard Maluf wrote:Lk 11:27-28 is self-referring to Lk 1:38,47
> > Luke is here substituting the apostolic preaching
> and teaching (as
> >communicating that of Jesus himself) for Torah
demonstrating that those like his mother Mary are
truly blessed who give positive responses to God's word.
John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
In a message dated 7/31/2002 2:03:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... But, as you describe it, it is no longer Luke s FULASSW, but that of his source. What isMessage 1 of 3 , Aug 1, 2002View SourceIn a message dated 7/31/2002 2:03:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ron.price@... writes:
But the way I see it, Luke substituted "word of God" for "Torah" which
had occurred in the earlier written version of the saying. This would
explain Luke's FULASSW which, as indicated in the previous posting, is
used for keeping the Jewish law or the Jewish law as interpreted by
James et al..
But, as you describe it, it is no longer "Luke's" FULASSW, but that of his source. What is gratuitous here is your positing of a source other than assuming Luke's free composition, influenced by topically related Deuteronomic usage. In particular if this IS an instance of "Luke's FULASSW", then you should be thinking of Luke as the author of the verses. In fact, however, Luke is the only Synoptic evangelist who frequently uses FULASSW in a way entirely unconnected with the Law or special Deuteronomic usage. Where he does use it, therefore, in a clearly Deuteronomic sense and manner, then it is reasonable to assume influence of Deuteronomic usage on Luke's phrase. Unless you are committed to a view of Luke as someone who cannot write, but only copy sources. I find this strange.
As there is no direct quotation of Deuteronomy in these
verses, your apparent preference for interpreting FULASSW against its
Deuteronomic use rather than against its Lukan use seems rather
This is contorted reasoning. As stated above, Lukan usage of FULASSW is sometimes clearly influenced by Deuteronomic idiom, sometimes not. It is simplistic, therefore, to speak of "Lukan use" as though this were, or need be monolithic. And it would be methodologically soft to assume that wherever Deuteronomic influence is clear, then Luke is copying from a source. This does not follow at all, and I find it highly improbable. Why on earth should there need to be "a direct quotation from Deuteronomy" for Luke to be allowing Deuteronomic language to influence his own? Luke is very sparing with direct quotations, but pervasively, in most of his known writing -- up to the middle of Acts -- influenced by the language of his Greek bible.