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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.