4432RE: [Synoptic-L] Poirier & length of Luke (and Acts)
- Aug 2 1:13 PMDavid 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 Mealand, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>