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

Authorial Luke [L4]

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: GPG Cc: Synoptic On: Authorial Luke [L4] From: Bruce I continue to accept the general implications of the Trajectory arguments (Mk Mt Lk), though
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 5, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      To: GPG
      Cc: Synoptic
      On: Authorial Luke [L4]
      From: Bruce

      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

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Synoptic/message/210

      LUKE 4

      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.

      DIRECTIONALITY

      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.

      SCENARIO

      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.

      GOULDER

      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.
      Luke's change

      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
      recorded.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.