RE: [Synoptic-L] What is the early evidence for Luke chapters 1-3?
- 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.
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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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 Mealand, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> 2. More generally, can we give a terminus ante quem forA well known argument on gospels datation is : since there is a
> anything in Lk?
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,If I well remember, Boismard listed many other John-Luke connections,
> 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.
using previous older references. See his proto-Luke.
> 3. All in all, I would say that there is a case that JnOr Luke and John shared a common source.
> 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.