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

4432RE: [Synoptic-L] Poirier & length of Luke (and Acts)

Expand Messages
  • David Mealand
    Aug 2, 2012
      David Inglis raises an important issue: he wrote
      ...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.
      I had already indicated some caution about the omission being
      explained by 3 uses of a stack of wax tablets arriving at the
      first of these totals, and matching the three sections of Luke.
      This goes deeper. While I am not wholly persuaded that Luke
      1 & 2 are additions to Luke it is a hypothesis I am willing to
      entertain (as the philosophers are wont to say) in order to
      consider the consequences. The latter are intriguing. If
      Luke 1 & 2 are additions, and if David I's attempts to recover the
      Luke known to Marcion provide evidence for this, then what is
      the status, on this view, of the Lukan preface? I would be very
      interested in David's response to this, as it has implications
      for other aspects of what became the two volume work that got
      attributed to "Luke".

      Hope this isn't too convoluted a question.

      David M.

      David Mealand, University of Edinburgh

      The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
      Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic