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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Matthew and "Q"

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Bruce, irrefutably ? Perhaps someone should have pointed this out to Professor Goulder, who finds traces of this section of Mark elsewhere in Luke
    Message 1 of 34 , May 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Bruce Brooks wrote:

      > ....... the "Great
      > Omission," which as Streeter irrefutably showed (cf The Four Gospels), was
      > missing in Lk's copy of Mk.

      Bruce,

      "irrefutably"? Perhaps someone should have pointed this out to Professor
      Goulder, who finds traces of this section of Mark elsewhere in Luke ("Luke:
      A New Paradigm", p.436f.).

      You have joined the crowd of people who minimize the versatility of the
      scholarly Luke. It amazes me how big this crowd has become.

      > The disposition of later commentators to regard
      > Luke's omission of this material as literarily or doctrinally motivated
      > simply ignores the details of Streeter's demonstration. The key point is
      > that Luke's omission does not coincide with pericope boundaries, but
      > overlaps them at both ends. This is not how an anthologist, or in Luke's
      > case a supposed disanthologist, operates.

      This last sentence may well be correct. But an anthologist, according to my
      dictionary, is someone who collects literary passages by various authors. If
      you think that's all Luke was doing, or even primarily what he was doing,
      then you have vastly underestimated him.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Dave Gentile
      ... Dave: Better , is a subjective judgment. Personally I d prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that s just my subjective judgment.
      Message 34 of 34 , May 15, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron:

        >
        > Dave,
        >
        > What you propose is clearly not impossible. But it is certainly not as good
        > as the original. What you present here is a brief general call to
        > repentance, followed by scenarios of people eager to repent. In our extant
        > Luke there is a warning of wrath and fire, so that by verse 10 one can sense
        > the crowds feeling guilty and ready to make amends. It parallels an
        > evangelistic meeting where there is a lengthy build-up of emotion before a
        > challenge to commitment. Luke was a good storyteller!

        Dave:

        'Better', is a subjective judgment. Personally I'd prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that's just my subjective judgment.

        Consistency, and sticking with a theme is a less subjective measure.


        Ron:

        >
        > But there remains the jump in the opposite direction, between verses 3 & 4.
        > In the extant text vv. 4-6 represent a temporary departure from the theme of
        > repentance so that Luke can portray the Jewish scriptures as hinting at the
        > salvation of the Gentiles (v.6).

        I really don't see this as much of a jump, if any. v3 mentions forgiveness (group not named), and the quote from Isaiah's 'punchline' is about salvation (for all). "Forgiveness -> salvation" seems like theme continuity to me.

        I've not had a chance to look at the rest yet. Probably Tuesday, if not before then.

        Dave
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.