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
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.