Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4425RE: [Synoptic-L] Poirier's article in latest JSNT

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    Aug 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Having also read the article, although I think it is very good as far as it goes, I am disappointed that it doesn't
      touch on what I consider a major issue with what we see as Luke. This is the significant (to my mind, at least) evidence
      that the first version was not only shorter (e.g. missing at least chapters 1 and 2), and also had material in a
      different order (e.g. swapping Capernaum and Nazareth). As a result, any discussion of how the author of Luke composed
      it should take account of what the initial version most likely contained, and not what it currently contains. For
      example, if "the NA27 text of Luke's Gospel contains 95,972

      letters, while the text of Acts contains 95,838," then I think it very unlikely that this was true for at least the
      initial version of Luke. Consequently, what we see today may well have been 'massaged' so that Luke and Acts both fitted
      on a scroll of the same length, but I very much doubt that this applied to their initial form.

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Goodacre
      Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 3:34 PM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Poirier's article in latest JSNT

      Thanks, David. Good points, all. With respect to Matthew's work on Q and M, Derrenbacker has the interesting suggestion
      that Q may have been in codex form and so easier to bob around in. But I like your suggestion about Matthew working with
      wax tablets for this material -- that would also help to explain Matthew's "unscrambling" of Q's excellent order of the
      sayings and his rather wooden, thematic re-ordering. [ ;-) ]

      I agree with you about the slight anti-climax on the reverse-scrolling issue. In reading the article for the first time,
      I had assumed that Poirier was going to make the argument not only that it was feasible but
      also that it was what he thinks Luke did. But Goulder's argument for the reverse-scrolling is problematic because of the
      correspondences, not because of the process.

      But what I like about Poirier's article is that it stimulates the imagination to think about the realia -- agreed.

      Mark Goodacre
      Duke University
      Department of Religion
      Gray Building / Box 90964
      Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
      Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic