Authorial Luke [L4]
- To: GPG
On: Authorial Luke [L4]
I continue to accept the general implications of the Trajectory arguments
(Mk > Mt > Lk), though leaving it open if there are local crosscurrents or
exceptions. The project is to see what the color coding in the Farmer
Synopsis suggests about the way Lk used his two precursors, Mt (here, T),
and Mk (K)>
CONVENTIONS: K = many links to Mark (k = few); T/t ditto Matthew
B/b ditto Both. L = no other Synoptic parallel save Luke himself.
The inconcinnities in this part of Luke are famous; they come from Luke's
later rearranging material which originally stood, *in the text of Luke,* in
their Markan order. For several of the segments included here, see my
earlier inconcinnity analysis at
4:1-13 . . . [Tk] . . . Temptations of Jesus
4:14-15 . . [Tb] . . .Return to Galilee
4:16-30 . . [Ltb] . . Preaching at Nazareth
4:31-32 . . [K] . . . .Preaching at Capernaum
4:33-37 . . [K] . . . .The Capernaum Demoniac
4:38-39 . . [Kt] . . . Healing Peter's Mother-in-Law
4:40-41 . .[Kt] . . .Mass Healing That Evening
4:42-44 . . [Kt] . . . Departure for Preaching in Judea
In general, the influence of T [Matthew] is stronger at the beginning (up to
the Return to Galilee), and
that of K [Mark] from the Preaching at Capernaum to the end, but except for
passages where only one parallel
exists, there are slight echoes of the wording of the other text. Some of
those echoes border on the trivial (eg, AUTOIS), but others are not easily
dismissed, and the impression remains that whichever of the two Luke has
chiefly in mind, the other one is also present in a supplementary way.
Despite the seeming shift in primary attention (T > K), there turns out to
be no support in these relationships for a scenario in which Luke lays down
one source and then picks another up. Where both exist in a given passage,
the usual result in Lk is a preference for one but with elements and
recollections and persistences of the other.
Lk has rearranged the increasingly grand Matthean Temptations [mostly no Mk
||] and adjusted some content in line with his intention to climax the story
at Jerusalem. This is a detail in the larger Jerusalemizing Trajectory
pattern, and agrees with all the other elements of that pattern, which
begins in Mt but is strengthened in Lk.
For Nazareth see above. The form Nazara (Lk 4:16) is distinctively Matthean,
and the later HRXATO "he began" (4:21) is distinctively Markan, though in Mk
4:2 it precedes a different verb ["preach" rather than "say"]. We may
perhaps detect an increasing acknowledgement of Joseph:
Mk "Is this not the carpenter?"
Mk "Is this not the carpenter's son?"
Lk "Is this not Joseph's son?"
Luke's new addition to both preceding versions, citing the favors of God not
to Israel but to other nations, is also unique in Luke, who (see further
Acts) regards other nations as the ultimate recipients of the message of
salvation. This Gentile Trajectory has many parallels, all of them with Luke
as their last member.
4:33f. Only Luke retains Mk's incident of the Capernaum Demoniac, and
closely follows Mk's wording also.
4:40f. Ignores Mt's abridgement of this scene, including his added OT quote.
4:42f. No Mt parallel
4:44. Luke's extension of Jesus's early preaching to include Judea is a
departure from all precedent, but again suits his purpose to lay a
foundation for Jesus in the Jerusalem area, and to provide narratively
consecutive reasons for everything Jesus or anyone else does in the story
(in Mark, Jesus seems to be asking prearranged favors from people who, in
the Markan narrative itself, he has never met or otherwise previously
contacted, and these loose ends Lk seems concerned to provide for). In the
preaching of Jesus in Judea we have a Jerusalemizing factor, which will be
carried much further in John.
4:44. The Lk parallel to Mt 4:23 is actually found elsewhere, in Lk 6:18f
(|| Mk 3:10). The word identities there are heavily Markan. This set of
passages involves an interesting knot of mutual rearrangements, and place
name variants, not here analyzed.
There are in Lk 4 no unambiguous and substantive contradictions to the
general Trajectory pattern Mk > Mt > Lk.
The key item for scenario purposes is the Nazareth episode. The wording of
that episode in our Luke is at least in part unchanged from the time when it
stood in its Markan sequence in Luke's narrative. I do not here develop (but
cf SBL 2007) the implication that Luke has two compositional phases, an A
which takes events in Markan order, and a B which rearranges them for a
variety of thematic and narrative completeness reasons.
The argument that the Mt order of the Temptations follows the OT order of
the events symbolized in the Temptations, and is thus prior, is cogent.
Goulder has missed the import of the rearrangement phenomenon in Lk, but
nothing in his discussion of Lk 4 raises problems for the impressions here
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst