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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Lk 22:35-39 - Interpolation or not?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.