Re: [Synoptic-L] Sources for Luke
Great point. That's why I try to call the double tradition the double tradition, and not Q, unless I am referring to the hypothetical source of the double tradition.
--- On Mon, 6/8/09, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:
From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
Subject: [Synoptic-L] Sources for Luke
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 4:52 PM
In Response To: Dave Gentile
On: Sources for Luke
DAVE (in the middle of another conversation) : In both hypotheses Luke has
his own creativity (we both agree this source exists, I assume) to draw from
in addition to Mark and Mt-or-Q.
BRUCE: Just a suggestion on strategy of statement. I don't think it helps to
call Luke's original material, whether or not drawn from his own
"creativity, " a "source." Why? Because conversations on this topic have an
established meaning for "source" - it is a previous written document by
somebody else (or its "oral" functional equivalent). The basic question, as
far as I have observed, is in this form: Did he have a source or did he make
it up? I think it helps the discourse (however the current one may come out)
to keep those answers separate.
Is the so-called L material external to Luke, or internal? Only in the
former case does current usage seem to countenance calling it a "source." I
guess I would tend to keep to current usage.
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]