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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Lk 1:5f

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Regarding the postulated later addition of the birth narratives in Luke I ... Bruce, It may be that your thought here is based on out-dated ideas. As I
    Message 1 of 41 , Oct 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Regarding the postulated later addition of the birth narratives in Luke I
      had written:

      >> .....I have a simpler explanation of the motive. Some readers of
      >> the first edition probably criticized the new gospel for not having birth
      >> stories like Matthew. The rivalry between the two influential Christian
      >> communities where the respective gospels were written would then have been
      >> enough to trigger the creation of new and better birth stories for the new
      >> gospel.

      Bruce Brooks replied:

      > This seems to assume very modern conditions of book production and
      > crowd pleasing. In particular, it seems to assume that the audience for Luke
      > and Matthew was the same, and that its collective reaction forced changes in
      > a later version of Luke.
      >
      > I would have thought it more probable that the "communities" were not merged
      > (as far as publisher agendas were concerned), but separate, according to the
      > Lachmann-Streeter local text hypothesis.

      Bruce,

      It may be that your thought here is based on out-dated ideas. As I
      understand it, the most widely respected modern source for this topic is
      Harry Gamble's _Books and Readers in the Early Church_ (Yale UP, 1995).

      Gamble states that it is unlikely that any of the gospels was composed for
      strictly local use, but broader dissemination must have been intended from
      the outset (p.102). He explains the rich proliferation of Gospel documents
      in the late 1st.c & early 2nd.c as reflecting a lively interest in written
      accounts about Jesus (p.103).

      It is reasonable to deduce that this lively interest would most likely have
      led to the acquisition of a copy of Matthew's gospel by whichever church was
      later to be the origin of the gospel of Luke.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Ron Price
      ... Bruce, I don t know what you think was narratively promised but not delivered. If you are referring to the promises in 14:28 and 16:7, then I understand
      Message 41 of 41 , Oct 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce Brooks wrote:

        > Thinking about Ron's suggestion, just now, reminded me of something possibly
        > relevant, which I toss in as a sort of second reply to at least that aspect
        > of his comment. It concerns the degree to which local communities and
        > traditions were in mutual contact in the 1st century.
        >
        > I start with the ending of Mark, and I note that those who feel it is
        > interrupted in the middle of a sentence seem to have the better of the
        > argument. Parallels can be found, with extreme effort, for ending a sentence
        > or even a segment with gar, but not a whole work, and anyway, the point with
        > Mark is that if it ends at Mk 4:8 [16:8], it does not narratively deliver what
        > it has narratively promised, and that is a no-no.

        Bruce,

        I don't know what you think was narratively promised but not delivered. If
        you are referring to the promises in 14:28 and 16:7, then I understand your
        point, but would answer it by arguing that both these verses were
        interpolated into the text. Anyway you'll have to make a very good case if
        it's to outweigh the overwhelming consensus of recent critical scholars that
        16:8 is the original ending.

        Mark is the subtlest of the synoptic authors. His picture of an empty tomb
        is quite enough to suggest the resurrection of Jesus. He avoids presenting
        any of the original disciples as seeing the risen Jesus, for this would add
        to their status, contravening his persistent denigration of Peter et al..

        Of course, as we know, later generations did try to plug what they saw as an
        omission (Mk 16:9-20 etc.), but all such later additions can be shown to be
        inauthentic.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.