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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Evidence that at some point Luke began at v. 1:5b

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    David Inglis asked, a propos quotations of Gospel beginnings in the Patristic literature, that for Luke lacking the prologue: Luke 1:1-4 is an obvious intro,
    Message 1 of 8 , May 11, 2013
      David Inglis asked, a propos quotations of Gospel beginnings in the
      Patristic literature, that for Luke lacking the prologue:

      " Luke 1:1-4 is an obvious intro, so is there any other evidence to suggest
      that at some point Luke did not have these first 4 verses?"

      I would guess that its intro function - that is, its status as a label, and
      thus as standing outside the Gospel story proper - was as obvious to the
      ancients as to us, and they would no more begin a quote with it then a
      modern person would begin a quote from a modern novel by repeating the
      copyright information at the front of the book, or precede a quote of a
      Shakespeare sonnet with a copy of the publisher's dedication to the sonnets'
      "onlie begetter," or introduce an extract from Benjamin Wisner Bacon by
      giving the call number of the local library copy of that work. It would be a
      gaucherie to do so, and would mark the quoter as a lackwit and an oaf.

      If nevertheless the thought be entertained that Lk 1:1-4 is a later addition
      to the version of Luke which begins with the Birth Narrative, what would
      have been the motive and effect of its addition? "Theophilus" is a pretty
      good general name for one interested in religion, and thus as a general
      invocation of the intended reader of the Gospel. There seems to be no known
      specific "Theophilus" whose later mention would add luster to the book, or
      enhance its acceptance. The book in its later form, with the Birth Narrative
      prefixed to the previous version, is then introduced by the preface, which
      shows it to have been aimed at the intelligent Christian reader (sic; not
      hearer), the Benjamin Wisner Bacon public; the prologue or dedication seeks
      to advance the claims of Luke (B) over the claims of other accounts of
      Jesus, then in general circulation and thus competing with Luke (B) itself
      for acceptance by that critical reading public, by claiming finality if not
      originality for its text. As a modern publisher might push a competing
      Scripture Commentary by calling it "definitive."

      The race is then with Matthew and Mark. Why not with Q and Mark? Because if
      any "Q" text was that much in the picture - that much in the running for
      general favor - when the prologue of Luke B was penned, it becomes highly
      unlikely that no reference or other evidence for its existence should ever
      have been found. If on the other hand Matthew and Mark are the other texts
      in view in the prologue (and since Luke B is theologically and otherwise
      further developed along general lines than Matthew, and thus, in that form,
      presumptively later than both, this is a possibility), everything seems to
      work.

      No?

      Then the prologue was not present when Luke A was written (Luke A began at
      the present Lk 3:1f), at which time Matthew did not yet exist and Luke's
      only task was to write something which would update Mark for the Sixties.
      The prologue was instead part of the highly competitive Luke B, written with
      the purpose of contesting the ground with the already popular Matthew, and
      striving to outdo Matthew at every turn (not least in the Birth Narrative,
      where Luke utterly swamps Matthew, with not one but two miraculous births,
      and so on down the line).

      Now, if some late author had seemed to regard Lk 3:1f as the beginning of
      Luke's Gospel, THEN we would have something of interest. Or so it looks from
      here.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • David Inglis
      In response to my question: Luke 1:1-4 is an obvious intro, so is there any other evidence to suggest that at some point Luke did not have these first 4
      Message 2 of 8 , May 12, 2013
        In response to my question: " Luke 1:1-4 is an obvious intro, so is there any other evidence to suggest that at some
        point Luke did not have these first 4 verses?" Bruce Brooks answered:



        "I would guess that its intro function - that is, its status as a label, and thus as standing outside the Gospel story
        proper - was as obvious to the ancients as to us, and they would no more begin a quote with it then a modern person
        would begin a quote from a modern novel by repeating the copyright information at the front of the book, or precede a
        quote of a Shakespeare sonnet with a copy of the publisher's dedication to the sonnets' "onlie begetter," or introduce
        an extract from Benjamin Wisner Bacon by giving the call number of the local library copy of that work. It would be a
        gaucherie to do so, and would mark the quoter as a lackwit and an oaf."



        Bruce then followed this with a discussion amounting to trying to get into the head of aLk and come up with a motive for
        adding Lk 1:1-4 to an existing document. IMHO any attempt to come up with a motive for why aLk (or anyone else) wrote is
        most likely doomed to failure. We weren't there, we don't know who or what any of the NT authors knew or didn't know, we
        don't know who they were writing for, what other NT documents their target readership may have had access to, etc. In
        short, unless we find something specifically telling us when an author did what they did, anything else is little
        better than guesswork. In this particular case, Bruce (as I understand it) is effectively saying that it doesn't matter
        how much evidence we might find in the patristic literature, it is of no account because none of the fathers would have
        had any reason to quote Lk 1:1-4. In the instances I quoted this is a reasonable possibility for the omission of Lk
        1:1-4 (except that both instances actually begin with Lk 1:5b), but that's all it is - a possibility, and none of what
        Bruce wrote goes further than this.



        Other possibilities exist, of course, such as: Chapters 1-2 were not originally in Lk A, and were added later (as part
        of Lk B). aLk then wrote Acts, modified the end of Lk, and added Lk 1:1-4 to tie the two documents together (and so
        created Lk C). Theophilus was a real person (who is just not mentioned in any extant records) to whom both documents
        were addressed, and this copy then formed the basis of all copies of Lk since. Now I'm not suggesting that this IS what
        happened, but the evidence strongly suggests that there WERE different versions of Lk, and that without any actual
        evidence to the contrary, Lk 1:1-4 COULD be a late addition.



        What is the earliest evidence we have for the existence of Lk 1:1-4? Neither P45 nor P75 are extant for the early
        chapters of Lk, P4 and P42 are not extant for the early part of Lk 1, so (unless I've missed something) there's no ms
        evidence for Lk 1:1-4 until the 3rd century. So, perhaps a better question from me would have been: What is the earliest
        patristic evidence for the existence of Lk 1:1-4? Anyone?



        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

        Luke Chapters 1 and 2 <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/luke/luke-chapters-1-and-2>







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Dennis
        Maybe Irenaeus. http://earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/luke1.html Dennis Dean Carpenter Dahlonega, Ga. So, perhaps a better question from me would have
        Message 3 of 8 , May 12, 2013
          Maybe Irenaeus.

          http://earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/luke1.html



          Dennis Dean Carpenter

          Dahlonega, Ga.



          So, perhaps a better question from me would have been: What is the earliest
          patristic evidence for the existence of Lk 1:1-4? Anyone?

          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

          Luke Chapters 1 and 2
          <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/luke/luke-chapters-1-and
          -2>

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jgibson
          ... Origien Jeffrey ****** *Origenes* Theol., *Fragmenta in evangelium Joannis *(in catenis) (2042: 006) /Origenes Werke, /vol. 4 , Ed. Preuschen, E. Leipzig:
          Message 4 of 8 , May 12, 2013
            On 5/12/2013 1:48 PM, Dennis wrote:
            > Maybe Irenaeus.
            >
            > http://earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/luke1.html
            >
            >
            Origien

            Jeffrey

            ******

            *Origenes* Theol., *Fragmenta in evangelium Joannis *(in catenis) (2042:
            006)
            "/Origenes Werke, /vol. 4", Ed. Preuschen, E.
            Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903; /Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller /10.
            Fragment 1, line 71

            ??? ?
            ?????? ?????? «*_?????_**_?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ???
            »???????? ????????? ??? ?????».
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------


            *Origenes* Theol., *Homiliae in Lucam* (2042: 016)
            "/Origenes Werke, /vol. 9, 2nd edn.", Ed. Rauer, M.
            Berlin: Akademie--Verlag, 1959; /Die griechischen christlichen
            Schriftsteller/ 49 (35).
            Homily 1, page 7, line 14

            ??? ?????? «*_???-
            ??_**_?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ?????
            ???????? ??? ???????? ?????????
            ??? ?????».

            *Origenes* Theol., *Fragmenta in Lucam *(in catenis) (2042: 017)
            "/Origenes Werke, /vol. 9, 2nd edn.", Ed. Rauer, M.
            Berlin: Akademie--Verlag, 1959; /Die griechischen christlichen
            Schriftsteller /49 (35).
            Fragment 5, line 2

            ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??? ???????? ????????? ???-
            ??????, ????? ?????????? ?????? «*_?????_**_?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ?????
            ???????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????».

            *Origenes* Theol., *Scholia in Lucam *(fragmenta e cod. Venet. 28)
            (2042: 078); /MPG /17.
            Volume 17, page 312, line 43

            ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??? ???-
            ????? ????????, ????? ?????????? ?????? /*_?????_**_
            ?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ??? ??-
            ?????? ????????? ??? ?????./ ????????????? ??, ???
            ?????? ??????????????, ?? ???? ??? ?????????, ????
            ????.

            *Origenes* Theol., Scholia in Lucam (fragmenta e cod. Venet. 28)
            Volume 17, page 313, line 19

            ??? ?????, /*_?????_**_?????????_*
            ???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ????-
            ????? ??? ?????./ ?? ??? ?? ????????? ??? ??????
            ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ????-
            ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?????, ??????????? ?????, ???
            ?????? ? ????????, ??? ?????? ?? ????????? /????-
            ?????, ????????? ?????./ ?? ??? ??????? ??? ??-
            ??? ???? ???????, ???? ?????? ? ?????? /? ???????
            ???, ?????? ??? ??????, ??? ???????? ??./ ???
            ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ? ?????? *

            Origenes* Theol., *Commentarii in evangelium Joannis *(lib. 19, 20, 28,
            32) (2042: 079)

            *"/Origenes Werke, /vol. 4", Ed. Preuschen, E.
            Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903; /Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller /10.
            Book 20, chapter 7, section 46, line 2

            >*


            ????? ????????? ?? ????? ???????? ??' ????? ????????
            ????????? ??? ?????, ???? ?? ? ?????? ????? «*_?????_**_?????????_*
            »???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????»,
            ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????, ???
            ???? ????? ???????? ?? «?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ? ????»,
            ?????? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ? ???? ?????????.


            --
            ---
            Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.
            1500 W. Pratt Blvd
            Chicago, IL
            jgibson000@...



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David Inglis
            Thanks Dennis, Jeffrey: In Ad. Haer (c. 180) Irenaeus gives us evidence of Lk 1:2. Origen is obviously later (e.g. Homilies on Luke c. 240 quotes Lk 1:1), so
            Message 5 of 8 , May 12, 2013
              Thanks Dennis, Jeffrey: In Ad. Haer (c. 180) Irenaeus gives us evidence of Lk 1:2. Origen is obviously later (e.g.
              Homilies on Luke c. 240 quotes Lk 1:1), so can we go back any further than Irenaeus?



              David Inglis



              From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jgibson
              Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:14 PM
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Evidence that at some point Luke began at v. 1:5b

              On 5/12/2013 1:48 PM, Dennis wrote:
              > Maybe Irenaeus.
              >
              > http://earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/luke1.html
              >
              Origien

              Jeffrey

              ******

              *Origenes* Theol., *Fragmenta in evangelium Joannis *(in catenis) (2042:
              006)
              "/Origenes Werke, /vol. 4", Ed. Preuschen, E.
              Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903; /Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller /10.
              Fragment 1, line 71

              ??? ?
              ?????? ?????? <*_?????_**_?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ???
              >???????? ????????? ??? ?????>.
              ----------------------------------------------------------

              *Origenes* Theol., *Homiliae in Lucam* (2042: 016)
              "/Origenes Werke, /vol. 9, 2nd edn.", Ed. Rauer, M.
              Berlin: Akademie--Verlag, 1959; /Die griechischen christlichen
              Schriftsteller/ 49 (35).
              Homily 1, page 7, line 14

              ??? ?????? <*_???-
              ??_**_?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ?????
              ???????? ??? ???????? ?????????
              ??? ?????>.

              *Origenes* Theol., *Fragmenta in Lucam *(in catenis) (2042: 017)
              "/Origenes Werke, /vol. 9, 2nd edn.", Ed. Rauer, M.
              Berlin: Akademie--Verlag, 1959; /Die griechischen christlichen
              Schriftsteller /49 (35).
              Fragment 5, line 2

              ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??? ???????? ????????? ???-
              ??????, ????? ?????????? ?????? <*_?????_**_?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ?????
              ???????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????>.

              *Origenes* Theol., *Scholia in Lucam *(fragmenta e cod. Venet. 28)
              (2042: 078); /MPG /17.
              Volume 17, page 312, line 43

              ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??? ???-
              ????? ????????, ????? ?????????? ?????? /*_?????_**_
              ?????????_* ???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ??? ??-
              ?????? ????????? ??? ?????./ ????????????? ??, ???
              ?????? ??????????????, ?? ???? ??? ?????????, ????
              ????.

              *Origenes* Theol., Scholia in Lucam (fragmenta e cod. Venet. 28)
              Volume 17, page 313, line 19

              ??? ?????, /*_?????_**_?????????_*
              ???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ????-
              ????? ??? ?????./ ?? ??? ?? ????????? ??? ??????
              ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ????-
              ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?????, ??????????? ?????, ???
              ?????? ? ????????, ??? ?????? ?? ????????? /????-
              ?????, ????????? ?????./ ?? ??? ??????? ??? ??-
              ??? ???? ???????, ???? ?????? ? ?????? /? ???????
              ???, ?????? ??? ??????, ??? ???????? ??./ ???
              ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ? ?????? *

              Origenes* Theol., *Commentarii in evangelium Joannis *(lib. 19, 20, 28,
              32) (2042: 079)

              *"/Origenes Werke, /vol. 4", Ed. Preuschen, E.
              Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903; /Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller /10.
              Book 20, chapter 7, section 46, line 2

              >*

              ????? ????????? ?? ????? ???????? ??' ????? ????????
              ????????? ??? ?????, ???? ?? ? ?????? ????? <*_?????_**_?????????_*
              >???? ?? ??' ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????>,
              ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????, ???
              ???? ????? ???????? ?? <?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ? ????>,
              ?????? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ? ???? ?????????.

              --
              ---
              Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.
              1500 W. Pratt Blvd
              Chicago, IL
              jgibson000@... <mailto:jgibson000%40comcast.net>



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Ronald Price
              ... David, For what it s worth, neither my page model for LukeEdn1 nor my page model for LukeEdn2 would work without the inclusion of these verses. (For the
              Message 6 of 8 , May 13, 2013
                David Inglis wrote:

                > Luke 1:1-4 is an obvious intro, so is there any other evidence to suggest that
                > at some point Luke did not have these first 4 verses?

                David,

                For what it's worth, neither my page model for LukeEdn1 nor my page model
                for LukeEdn2 would work without the inclusion of these verses. (For the
                structures and page models of Mark, Acts, Gal and Heb, go to the web page
                below. The details for Luke have not yet been made available, but they
                follow a similar pattern to that of the other books.)

                Consequently I am sure that these verses were part of the original gospel.

                Ron Price,

                Derbyshire, UK

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



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • E Bruce Brooks
                To: Synoptic In Response To: David Inglis On: Inside The Head of Luke From: Bruce David (on 12 May) had a rather crisp response to a comment of mine about the
                Message 7 of 8 , May 19, 2013
                  To: Synoptic
                  In Response To: David Inglis
                  On: Inside The Head of Luke
                  From: Bruce

                  David (on 12 May) had a rather crisp response to a comment of mine about the
                  motive of Luke at one point, and perhaps I should not let it go by without
                  rejoinder. David had said, inter alia:

                  "Bruce then followed this with a discussion amounting to trying to get into
                  the head of aLk and come up with a motive for adding Lk 1:1-4 to an existing
                  document. IMHO any attempt to come up with a motive for why aLk (or anyone
                  else) wrote is most likely doomed to failure. We weren't there, we don't
                  know who or what any of the NT authors knew or didn't know, we don't know
                  who they were writing for, what other NT documents their target readership
                  may have had access to, etc."

                  That is an absolute statement, applying to anything and everything in the
                  past. As an absolute statement applying to *everything,* it is undoubtedly
                  correct. We don't know (of our own direct experience) what Luke was
                  thinking, we don't know what anyone at the present time is thinking; and as
                  any shrink will tell you, we don't know, or at any rate cannot comprehend,
                  what we ourselves are thinking. We don't know the atomic weight of cesium,
                  and we don't know the motion of the moon.

                  Granted. But these are all areas in which some answers are better than
                  others, and some of the better answers are good enough to get along with. We
                  don't know the motion of the moon, but the people who did the calculations
                  for landing a vehicle on the moon seem to have indeed made moonfall. We
                  don't, in the metaphysical sense, know what possessed Luke, but there are
                  places where, at any rate, a hypothesis at one point can be supported, and
                  to that extent confirmed, by data from another point.

                  Take for example the controversial Atonement doctrine (controversial between
                  Paul in Romans, who argues for it from scripture, and the Epistle of James,
                  which heaps scorn and ridicule on precisely Paul's arguments from
                  scripture). That doctrine is almost absent from Mark, but it appears, I
                  would say unmistakably, at Mk 10:45, "For the Son of Man also came not to be
                  served, but to serve, *and to give his life as a ransom for many.*" Such
                  words as "blood" and "bought" and "ransom" tend to be markers for this
                  particular idea.

                  That this passage stood in Mk is made probable by the fact that Mt repeats
                  it identically. We then have to do with an Atonement affirmation in Mk, and
                  not some phantasm. So there it is, and along comes Luke, and now what does
                  Lk do with it?

                  He omits it (cf Lk 22:27, which picks up the "one who serves" part, but not
                  the "ransom for many" part).

                  We now ask, Why? I would suggest: because he didn't like it. That reason for
                  omitting something in one's Vorlage is probably commonplace; it certainly
                  requires no straining of the imagination; it is a plausible thought. But is
                  there any reason why we should prefer that particular plausible thought to
                  what may perhaps be other plausible thoughts?

                  There seems to be. In Acts, Luke describes in exquisite detail the career of
                  Paul, who we remember made much of the Atonement Doctrine in his own letters
                  (not only in Romans, but also in 1 Cor and in Galatians). Paul's affirmation
                  of this doctrine, and indeed the central position of this doctrine in his
                  thinking, thus need little argument. There they are, they are part of Paul
                  if anything is part of Paul. If we take from our reading of Paul's genuine
                  letters one fact about Paul's theology, this is probably going to be it. So
                  far Paul.

                  Now along comes Luke, and what does Luke do with this doctrine, as part of
                  Paul's teaching? Answer: He suppresses it. He shows Paul as preaching in all
                  sorts of places, but always from the OT, and not from Jesus's death. The
                  concept of "ransom" appears only once, and not as preaching, but as a
                  passing personal comment by Paul when taking leave of the Ephesian elders
                  (Ac 20:28, "to feed the church of the Lord, which he obtained with his own
                  blood"). That's the crop. This gives an entirely different idea of Paul's
                  convictions, and his late preaching, than we get from Paul's presumably more
                  accurate letters. It can only be intentional on Luke's part, and the
                  intention seems to be to deny the Atonement doctrine, not quite as something
                  Paul believed in (whence Ac 20:28), but as something which, if Luke has
                  anything to do about it, is *not* going to go down in history as part of
                  Apostolic preaching. Luke here excises the Atonement from what is sometimes
                  called the kerygma.

                  I would suggest that this second, panoramic, wide-scale example goes far to
                  confirm the already plausible inference that one might draw from Luke's
                  treatment of the single passage Mk 10:45.

                  I thus submit that, short of metaphysical certainty, which by definition we
                  are not going to get about any proposition whatever, the inference as to
                  Luke's motive in treating Mk 10:45 as he does may stand as not only
                  reasonable, but as consistent with Luke's practice elsewhere. That thought
                  may at least do until something better (something that explains even more of
                  the data) comes along.

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks
                  Warring States Project
                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.