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
  • 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 1 of 8 , May 13, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 8 , May 19, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        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.