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

Lk 22:35-39 - Interpolation or not?

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    I m trying to get my head around these verses. Only Lk 22:37, 39 have parallels, and only Lk 22:39 has a parallel in both Mk (14:26) and Mt (26:30). In all
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 9, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm trying to get my head around these verses. Only Lk 22:37, 39 have parallels, and only Lk 22:39 has a parallel in
      both Mk (14:26) and Mt (26:30). In all three Jesus go to the mount of Olives, although in Mk and Mt this happens before
      Jesus foresees Peter's denial. However, Lk 22:37 only has a parallel in Mk (at 15:28), where it is appropriate, whereas
      Lk 22:37 appears to have nothing to do with the surrounding text. So, on this basis, Lk 22:37 looks to be an
      interpolation. However, the whole of Lk 22:35-38 appears to interrupt its surrounding text as well, suggesting that this
      too is an interpolation. Also, because itself Mk 15:28 is not present in many mss, it appears that this may be an
      interpolation as well. Can anyone shed any more light on this area?



      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Wieland Willker
      Regarding Mk 15:28 I think the omission/addition has to do at least in part with lectionary usage. The external support for the omission is extremely strong
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 11, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Regarding Mk 15:28
        I think the omission/addition has to do at least in part with lectionary
        usage.
        The external support for the omission is extremely strong (01/B + D + A + k
        + Sy-S).
        Eusebius' canon table (early 4th CE) is the earliest witness for the verse.
        What is interesting is that no one added the words in Mt.



        Best wishes
        Wieland
        <><
        --------------------------
        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        Textcritical commentary:
        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic In Response To: Wieland Willker On: Mk 15:28 From: Bruce Wieland: Regarding Mk 15:28 . . . The external support for the omission is extremely
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 11, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Wieland Willker
          On: Mk 15:28
          From: Bruce

          Wieland: Regarding Mk 15:28 . . . The external support for the omission is
          extremely strong (01/B + D + A + k + Sy-S). Eusebius' canon table (early
          4th CE) is the earliest witness for the verse. What is interesting is that
          no one added the words in Mt.

          Bruce: Right; this is precisely Matthew's strategy of Scripture fulfilment.
          Presumably by the time of Eusebius, the Gospels were still subject to
          insertions, but somewhat less so to harmonizations as such.

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        • lmbarre@gmail.com
          The textual addition of Mark 15:38 illustrates a certain redactional, theological tendency already detectable in the Markan additions to pMark and PN. To
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 11, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            The textual addition of Mark 15:38 illustrates a certain redactional,
            theological" tendency already detectable in the Markan additions to pMark
            and PN. To this extent it provides evidence that the supernatural elements
            in the PN are redactional such as the fantastic darkness in the 6th hour and
            the miraculous renting of the veil. It also relates to the distinctively
            Christian" addition of Jesus' alleged claim regarding the destruction and
            three-day rebuilding of the "temple" which Mark wishes to relate to the
            predicted" death and resurrection of Jesus. This is confirmed by the
            second" inconsistency of the witnesses at Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin
            (added to that of 14:56). Thus, both the witnesses' second "inconsistent"
            testimony regarding the "temple" (14:57-58) and the later reference to it in
            PN (15:29-30) are likely "theological" additions. Further, Aristotle's
            ideal tragedy is not to contain any presence of a Deus ex Machina in that it
            strives for "imitation" or realism.

            LM Barré
            San Diego
            -------Original Message-------

            From: E Bruce Brooks
            Date: 1/11/2013 12:19:37 AM
            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Lk 22:35-39 - Interpolation or not?


            To: Synoptic
            In Response To: Wieland Willker
            On: Mk 15:28
            From: Bruce

            Wieland: Regarding Mk 15:28 . . . The external support for the omission is
            extremely strong (01/B + D + A + k + Sy-S). Eusebius' canon table (early
            4th CE) is the earliest witness for the verse. What is interesting is that
            no one added the words in Mt.

            Bruce: Right; this is precisely Matthew's strategy of Scripture fulfilment.
            Presumably by the time of Eusebius, the Gospels were still subject to
            insertions, but somewhat less so to harmonizations as such.

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David Inglis
            Thanks to Wieland and Bruce for their replies. I agree that the case for Mk 15:28 being an interpolation is very strong, but that wasn t my question. Given
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 12, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks to Wieland and Bruce for their replies. I agree that the case for Mk 15:28 being an interpolation is very strong,
              but that wasn't my question. Given that Mk 15:28 isn't original, doesn't that make it even stranger to see the same
              words in Lk 22:37? As I see it, all of Lk 22:35-39 originally had no parallel in either Mk or Mt, and further, because
              Lk 22:37 interrupts vv. 36-38, it looks to me as though v. 37 is an interpolation, that later made its way into Mk as v.
              15:28.



              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

              From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E Bruce Brooks
              Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:20 AM
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Lk 22:35-39 - Interpolation or not?





              To: Synoptic
              In Response To: Wieland Willker
              On: Mk 15:28
              From: Bruce

              Wieland: Regarding Mk 15:28 . . . The external support for the omission is
              extremely strong (01/B + D + A + k + Sy-S). Eusebius' canon table (early
              4th CE) is the earliest witness for the verse. What is interesting is that
              no one added the words in Mt.

              Bruce: Right; this is precisely Matthew's strategy of Scripture fulfilment.
              Presumably by the time of Eusebius, the Gospels were still subject to
              insertions, but somewhat less so to harmonizations as such.

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Ronald Price
              ... David, Thanks for bringing this Lukan verse to our attention. I hadn t noticed before how clumsily v. 37 interrupts the obvious connection between vv. 36
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 13, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                David Inglis wrote:

                > ..... because Lk 22:37 interrupts vv. 36-38, it looks to me as though v. 37 is
                > an interpolation, .....

                David,

                Thanks for bringing this Lukan verse to our attention. I hadn't noticed
                before how clumsily v. 37 interrupts the obvious connection between vv. 36
                and 38.

                For what it's worth, I have just now run my page analysis program for Luke
                with 22:37 excluded (I had already excluded the 'Western
                non-interpolations'). In my full 3-level hierarchical structure, the already
                small mean section/page boundary difference is reduced by 10%, and the worst
                section/page boundary difference reduces from 0.051 of a page to 0.047 of a
                page. This result, together with the awkwardness of v. 37 in its context and
                the plausible motivation for interpolation (to claim that scripture has been
                fulfilled), convince me that you are right about the verse being an
                interpolation. (However if I remove vv. 35-39, the whole section/page match
                is completely ruined.)

                > ..... that later made its way into Mk as v. 15:28.

                Not so sure about that. Apart from the scripture quotation, the Greek is not
                as close as some English translations suggest by their use of the verb
                'fulfil' in both verses.

                Ron Price,

                Derbyshire, UK

                http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/page_head.html




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Ronald Price
                The whole verse, Luke 22:37, breaks the sense of the paragraph, and probably is no true part of it. (Lindars, NT Apologetic, 85) My working hypothesis is as
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 14, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  "The whole verse, Luke 22:37, breaks the sense of the paragraph, and
                  probably is no true part of it." (Lindars, NT Apologetic, 85)

                  My working hypothesis is as follows:

                  "And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one" (Lk 22:36b,
                  NRSV) was intended as hyperbole, and "Lord, look, here are two swords" (v.
                  38a, NRSV) presented the disciples as taking it literally. v. 38b meant
                  "Enough of that", c.f. "Enough!" (REB). All this was too subtle for one
                  scribe who, worried about the implication of v. 36b that Jesus appeared to
                  be encouraging armed rebellion, inserted v. 37 in an effort to make out that
                  Jesus' words were foreordained, and therefore to criticize them would be
                  illogical. This motivation for the fulfilment claims is consistent with
                  Brandon's understanding: "... Luke attempts to explain [the arming] in terms
                  of the fulfilment of a prophecy (22:37)" (Jesus and the Zealots, 317 n.3).

                  Ron Price,

                  Derbyshire, UK

                  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.