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

Authorial Luke [L3]

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: GPG Cc: Synoptic; WSW On: Authorial Luke [L3] From: Bruce CONVENTIONS: K = many links to Mark (k = few); T/t ditto Matthew; B/b ditto Both; X/x all. L = no
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 28, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      To: GPG
      Cc: Synoptic; WSW
      On: Authorial Luke [L3]
      From: Bruce

      CONVENTIONS: K = many links to Mark (k = few); T/t ditto Matthew; B/b ditto
      Both; X/x all. L = no other Synoptic parallel save Luke himself.

      [This is the first chapter where possible comparisons with Mk exist. A
      certain interest therefore attaches to whether Lk can be shown unambiguously
      to have used Mk; that is, if there are passages highlighted by Farmer in
      green. We previously found that Lk could be construed as making creative use
      of Mt. That impression turns out to continue to be suggested by the Lk 3
      material. / EBB].

      LUKE 3

      3:1 . . . . . (L). . . . . Synchronism
      3:2-3. . . .(Ltkb) . . Introduction of John
      3:4-6 . . . (Ltkb). . .Isaiah prophecy
      3:7-9. . . .(T) . . . . .Preaching of John
      3:10-15 . (L) . . . . .Further Preaching of John
      3:16-18 . (Tk) . . . .Prediction of Jesus
      3:19-20 . (Lb) . . . .But Herod . . .
      3:21-22 . (Ltb) . . . Genealogy of Jesus
      3:23-38 . (Lt) . . . . Remainder of Genealogy of Jesus

      DIRECTIONALITY

      The Teaching of John at one point is simply taken over from Mt. Lk then
      expands on this core with further material of his own.

      The Genealogy is also part of the Trajectory basis: Luke extends Matthew's
      genealogy (with many changes of format and detail) back from Abraham
      (exclusively Jewish) to God (universal). This is compatible with Lukan
      behavior elsewhere: extending the validity of the Jesus mission beyond the
      Jews.

      See further directionality notes under GOULDER, below.

      SCENARIO

      Some adoption from Mt, some free composition to develop the Mt precedent,
      and a high-handed redo of the ethnically limited Mt genealogy. There are
      only a few passages where words or phrases are unmistakably drawn from Mk,
      but these compel us to conclude that in addition to following Mt with a
      respectful but free pen, Lk was also simultaneously aware of Mk. In this
      section, there can be no question of putting down one Vorlage and picking up
      another. Either Mt predominates, or the two are blended.

      In fact, we get in Lk 3 no extended passage which can be said to be based
      solely on Mk. Mt is the main precedent.

      Not to be coy about it, but is there a segment in Farmer which is either
      green (Mk parallel only) or blue (ambiguous result as to Mt/Lk), but no
      fuchsia (unambiguously Mt)? Not everybody has their very own Farmer
      Synopticon (my copy formerly belonged to C S Mann), so perhaps it is fair
      for me to peek ahead.

      One passage of this sort is the Capernaum Demoniac, Lk 4:33-37. (No Matthean
      parallel).

      Another is Lk 8:26-39, the long story of the Demoniac. Much in this Lukan
      story is ambiguously common to Mk/Mt, but a good deal also can only have
      been derived from Mk (green). The only word in the whole passage which has a
      parallel only in Mt is EMBAS "having embarked" [Mt 9:1]. It might be thought
      that this could have been supplied by Lk's own sense of the narrative
      requirements. But the story continues in Mt [9:2f] with the Healing of the
      Paralytic, which has its own disjunct parallel in Lk 5:17f. I think that
      here Farmer has been more sensitive to the parallels than have
      Huck/Throckmorton. It may thus be better to see Lk as following Mt also at
      this point, even if Mk is largely guiding the Lukan pen at this point.

      Another is Lk 9:49-50, the Strange Exorcist. Not long, but pure green.

      So yes, the color Synopsis does give us a sense of these things, and on
      these examples, a reasonably careful and precise sense.

      GOULDER

      Note (1/270) on Lk's alternation of sources, and his concentration here on
      Mt. As far as Lk 3 goes (and on the Farmer evidence), there is no doubt that
      Mt is the major source, but it is also unmistakable that there are
      smatterings of Markan wording as well. The text of Lk is drawing
      simultaneously, and not sequentially, on both. This does not conflict with
      the idea of *major* attention to one or the other, but it does qualify it.

      Goulder (1/271) is good on the slight transpositions made by Lk in his Mt
      precedent, and these amount to a directionality confirmation Mt > Lk. That
      is, Lukan motives for the changes are readily available.

      Goulder (1/275) justly observes the reluctance of earlier commentators (and
      some modern ones) to assume that Lk is at any point original. This is an
      outdated perception: Lk is clearly original at points; he has his own
      version of the story, and his own interpretation of the traditions available
      to him, and it is that recasting and reinterpretation that he is giving us.
      Multiplication of "sources" was necessary on the old understanding of Lk as
      simply a scribe, copying what was before him with his nose half an inch
      above the page. That understanding is obsolete.

      Goulder (1/279) notes the rearrangement of material in Lk so as to "close
      off" the Baptist's career from that of Jesus. Exactly so. Lk's
      rearrangements, both minor and major, are always motivated, and always
      intelligibly motivated. Goulder (1/281) notes some "clumsy" phrasing which
      arises as a consequence of certain of these rearrangements. Again, sound and
      convincing.

      The only departure from Goulder here is the idea of successive sources; we
      find Lk easier to explain on the basis of simultaneous use of Mt and Lk,
      along with a generous helping of Lk's own creative imagination and
      historiographical agenda.

      Bruce

      [E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst]
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      BRUCE wrote: Some adoption from Mt, some free composition to develop the Mt precedent, and a high-handed redo of the ethnically limited Mt genealogy. There are
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        BRUCE wrote:


        Some adoption from Mt, some free composition to develop the Mt precedent,
        and a high-handed redo of the ethnically limited Mt genealogy. There are
        only a few passages where words or phrases are unmistakably drawn from Mk,
        but these compel us to conclude that in addition to following Mt with a
        respectful but free pen, Lk was also simultaneously aware of Mk.

        LEONARD: "Unmistakably drawn from Mk," only for one who has a predisposition, not to say prejudice, in favor of Markan priority.
        Otherwise the logic here is hardly compelling. Many of the changes to Matthew in Luke's presentation of John are demonstrably Lukan, in the sense that they can be verified from elsewhere in Luke and/or Acts as characteristically Lukan perspectives. No neutral observer of the evidence would feel compelled to attribute these changes to the influence of Mark.

        Leonard Maluf
        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
        Weston, MA







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.