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

Re: [Synoptic-L] What is the early evidence for Luke chapters 1-3?

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    As far back as we can trace chapters 3 - 24. Rev. Chuck JonesAtlanta, Georgia ... From: David @ Comcast Subject: [Synoptic-L] What
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 18, 2009
      As far back as we can trace chapters 3 - 24.
      Rev. Chuck JonesAtlanta, Georgia

      --- On Tue, 8/18/09, David @ Comcast <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

      From: David @ Comcast <davidinglis2@...>
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] What is the early evidence for Luke chapters 1-3?
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 2:35 PM













       





      What evidence is there (mss, patristic references, anything else) for the

      early existence of Luke chapters 1-3? To put it another way round, how far

      back in time can we trace the existence of these specific chapters?



      David Inglis



      Lafayette, CA, 94549



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




































      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David @ Comcast
      Perhaps I could ask the question in a slightly different form: What early references are there to the contents of Luke chapters 1-3? David Inglis _____ From:
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 18, 2009
        Perhaps I could ask the question in a slightly different form: What early
        references are there to the contents of Luke chapters 1-3?



        David Inglis



        _____

        From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of Chuck Jones
        Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:39 AM
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] What is the early evidence for Luke chapters 1-3?

        As far back as we can trace chapters 3 - 24.
        Rev. Chuck JonesAtlanta, Georgia

        --- On Tue, 8/18/09, David @ Comcast <davidinglis2@
        <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> comcast.net> wrote:

        From: David @ Comcast <davidinglis2@ <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net>
        comcast.net>
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] What is the early evidence for Luke chapters 1-3?
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroup <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
        Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 2:35 PM

        What evidence is there (mss, patristic references, anything else) for the

        early existence of Luke chapters 1-3? To put it another way round, how far

        back in time can we trace the existence of these specific chapters?

        David Inglis

        Lafayette, CA, 94549

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 8.5.408 / Virus Database: 270.13.56/2302 - Release Date: 08/15/09
        06:10:00




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... Off the top of my head, Justin Martyr and the protevangelium of James in the mid second century. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson Ph.D. student, Religion,
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 18, 2009
          On Aug 18, 2009 3:50 PM, "David @ Comcast" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
          >Perhaps I could ask the question in a slightly different form: What early
          >references are there to the contents of Luke chapters 1-3?

          Off the top of my head, Justin Martyr and the protevangelium of James
          in the mid second century.

          Stephen

          --
          Stephen C. Carlson
          Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
          Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic In Response To: Dave Inglis On: Evidence for Lk 1-3 From: Bruce That s an interesting way to ask the question. Why exactly 1-3? 1. I would have
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 18, 2009
            To: Synoptic
            In Response To: Dave Inglis
            On: Evidence for Lk 1-3
            From: Bruce

            That's an interesting way to ask the question. Why exactly 1-3?

            1. I would have expected Lk 1-2, given that a very plausible original
            beginning for Lk exists at Lk 3:1. The question would then be: at what point
            was Lk 1-2 added? I can't see that anything is made of it in the rest of
            Lk-Acts; rather the contrary. So it is not part of Lk's Jerusalem-Rome
            master plan. It certainly leaves the corresponding part of Mt literarily
            nowhere, and it has the same faint recollection of Mt's wording at the part
            where they make contact at all, as is seen elsewhere when Lk is writing
            freely, so I don't consider it necessarily alien to Luke's procedures, but
            still, when can we prove it was there? There is of course no counterpart
            here in John, so that possibility is out. I can't answer the question.

            2. More generally, can we give a terminus ante quem for anything in Lk? Are
            any of the John parallels helpful, that is, do they include wording which,
            among the Synoptics, could have come only from Lk? Yes, but not many.

            2a. Thus, in the Nazareth episode, John has "Is this not Jesus, the son of
            Joseph? Mk has "the carpenter, the son of Mary, and Mt has "the son of the
            carpenter," whereas Lk has "Is this not Joseph's son?" The above Mk/Mt
            passages are the only places in the Gospels where the word "carpenter" is
            used. Perhaps it was too realistic for Luke, and also for John.

            2b. Again, in the story of the woman and the ointment, Mk/Mt lack a detail
            which Lk has, and Jn also has, namely that the woman wiped Jesus's feet with
            her hair.

            But the latter is a matter of pious legend, something that any late 1c
            writer could have known without taking Luke off the shelf, and one hesitates
            to put any very heavy weight on it.

            2c. In the Gethsemane scene, Mk/Mt have one of the Jesus party cutting off
            the ear of one of the arresting party; Lk specifies the right ear, and so
            does Jn.

            2d. The burial of Jesus was specified in Lk as the Day of the Preparation,
            and so does Jn.

            2e. Only Lk of the Synoptics has Peter run to the tomb and "stoop to look
            in;" so also Jn.

            2f. There are several spots in the Recognition scene, as when Jesus suddenly
            appears and says "Peace to you." Thus Lk, also Jn. The latter adds that the
            doors were shut at the time. He leaves out Lk's detail about the fish;
            perhaps too vulgar. Or too clinical.

            3. All in all, I would say that there is a case that Jn knew Lk, and was a
            little more comfortable in Lk's company when nobody else (Mk, Mt) was
            around, but was shy to the point of contrary elsewhere.

            4. I thus come out with the idea that the sequence Lk > Jn can be
            maintained, not only as temporal, but as literarily related. This however
            does not apply to the exiguous material in Lk 1-2.

            For which I join with Dave in awaiting any further suggestions.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • Dennis Dean Carpenter
            Justin seems to use Matthew in his first apology, chapter 33. He seems to be using Luke in the next chapter: .And hear what part of earth He was to be born
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 18, 2009
              Justin seems to use Matthew in his first apology, chapter 33. He seems to be using Luke in the next chapter: ".And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another prophet, Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: "And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a Governor, who shall feed My people."(5) Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea." He doesn't seem to mention "Luke" as a gospel or as a gospeleer.

              Dennis Dean Carpenter
              Dahlonega, Ga.


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Stephen C. Carlson
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com ; Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:10 PM
              Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] What is the early evidence for Luke chapters 1-3?


              On Aug 18, 2009 3:50 PM, "David @ Comcast" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
              >Perhaps I could ask the question in a slightly different form: What early
              >references are there to the contents of Luke chapters 1-3?

              Off the top of my head, Justin Martyr and the protevangelium of James
              in the mid second century.

              Stephen

              --
              Stephen C. Carlson
              Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
              Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David @ Comcast
              BRUCE: That s an interesting way to ask the question. Why exactly 1-3? DAVID I: I m looking for evidence of any of these 3 chapters prior to Marcion s gospel,
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 18, 2009
                BRUCE: That's an interesting way to ask the question. Why exactly 1-3?



                DAVID I: I'm looking for evidence of any of these 3 chapters prior to
                Marcion's gospel, in order to try to figure out whether Marcion is likely to
                have known these chapters or not.



                David Inglis

                Lafayette, CA, 94549



                No virus found in this incoming message.
                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                Version: 8.5.408 / Virus Database: 270.13.56/2302 - Release Date: 08/15/09
                06:10:00




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David Mealand
                As well as Justin Apol. 34, J.M.Creed cites Dial. 78, 88, 100, 103, 105 and 106 in a footnote to the dating section in the intro to his commentary on Luke,
                Message 7 of 9 , Aug 19, 2009
                  As well as Justin Apol. 34, J.M.Creed cites Dial. 78, 88,
                  100, 103, 105 and 106 in a footnote to the dating section
                  in the intro to his commentary on Luke, where he lists
                  passages from Luke 1-3 (and from later) as used by Justin.

                  Quite a bit later, of course, we have p75 and p4
                  see NA 27 pp 684 & 688, both have bits of Luke 1-3.

                  David M.


                  ---------
                  David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                  --
                  The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                  Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                • Emmanuel Fritsch
                  ... A well known argument on gospels datation is : since there is a prediction of Jerusalem fall, the stuff was writen after the fall. But I liked also the
                  Message 8 of 9 , Aug 21, 2009
                    > 2. More generally, can we give a terminus ante quem for
                    > anything in Lk?

                    A well known argument on gospels datation is : since there is a
                    prediction of Jerusalem fall, the stuff was writen after the fall. But I
                    liked also the reverted argument : Is the description of Jerusalem fall
                    fitting the real one ? If not, then the stuff is prior to the fall.

                    Who buy it ?

                    > Are any of the John parallels helpful,
                    > that is, do they include wording which,
                    > among the Synoptics, could have come only
                    > from Lk? Yes, but not many.
                    > [..]
                    > 2a. - 2b. - 2c. - 2d. - 2e. - 2f.

                    If I well remember, Boismard listed many other John-Luke connections,
                    using previous older references. See his proto-Luke.

                    > 3. All in all, I would say that there is a case that Jn
                    > knew Lk, and was a little more comfortable in Lk's company
                    > when nobody else (Mk, Mt) was around, but was shy to the
                    > point of contrary elsewhere.

                    Or Luke and John shared a common source.

                    a+
                    manu
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.