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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Aug 18, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 9 , Aug 19, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 9 , Aug 21, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          > 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.