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

The New Luke

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic On: The New Luke From: Bruce BACKGROUND Fitzmyer notes that Lk 1-2 cannot have been original, and that Luke must originally have begun with Lk
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 31, 2013
      To: Synoptic
      On: The New Luke
      From: Bruce

      BACKGROUND

      Fitzmyer notes that Lk 1-2 cannot have been original, and that Luke must
      originally have begun with Lk 3:1. This implies a two-stage composition
      process for Luke. Separately, the Nazareth scene in Lk, which presently
      begins that text's account of Jesus' preaching, is obviously out of place,
      since the line "as you did in Capernaum" occurs before Jesus has even
      visited Capernaum. But since that line is not in the Mk Vorlage, it can only
      have been written by Luke, and only when that episode was in a noninitial
      position. It must thus have been relocated, taking that now-anomalous line
      with it, at a later period. This also, and independently, implies a
      two-stage composition process for Luke. Neither anomaly can be attributed to
      later scribes, and thus both must belong to the formation process (not the
      later, post-publication corruption process) of Luke.

      I take that as established. The corollary is that every treatment of Luke,
      including Goulder's New Paradigm, which assumes only one stage for the
      composition of Luke, will now need to be re-examined.

      If the two stages of Luke (A and B) occurred both before and after Matthew,
      so that we would have

      Luke A > Matthew > Luke B

      then there opens the possibility of a Synoptic situation in which
      bidirectionality in the Mt/Lk common material not derived from Mk can be
      explained without positing a conjectural outside text (variously called S or
      Q). This is more or less where the prospect gets interesting. Also of
      interest is the possibility of basing impressions of Luke and his theology
      (about which many books have been written, no two with the same conclusion)
      exclusively on his original, pre-Matthean writings, and not on material Luke
      wrote under the influence of Matthew and other subsequent developments.
      There is also the connection with Paul, who had died not long before, in c60
      (for the pre-70 dating of Matthew, and thus, on present hypotheses, a
      fortiori of Luke A, see Gundry Matthew 599-609 ).

      This is more or less where matters stood in 2007, the time of my SBL
      presentation in the Luke-Acts section. Since that time, it has been found
      that it is necessary to posit a Luke C, consisting of additions made to Luke
      at the time Acts II was completed and added to the composite work.

      PROSPECT

      Things have continued since that time, these possibilities have been further
      developed, and the results have attracted some attention in the field, for
      their own interest and for the light they can shed on Paul (whose works have
      also been greatly clarified by the work of William Walker on interpolations
      in the genuine Paulines, an ongoing and vital project).

      What looks like happening in the next 18 months is that the Luke A/B/C
      construct will be considered by several interested specialists in Luke or in
      a closely related topic, at a series of small meetings to be held in
      connection with, or shortly before or after, regional and national meetings
      of SBL. Attendance at those meetings is invitational, though anyone
      interested in being invited is welcome to contact me off-list. In addition
      to the face meetings, the theory, as embodied in several published and
      prepublication articles, will be available for E-mail comment by members of
      the Alpha Christianity and GPG E-lists, and again, by other individuals who
      may like to identify themselves as interested. Posted materials for comment
      in this way include several published and prospective journal articles, and
      a complete if terse commentary on Luke from the ABC point of view, the third
      instalment of which is ready for posting to the unlisted Discussion page
      later this afternoon.

      In this way, we hope to show where this beginning leads to (and in
      particular, to show that it leads to a plausible and historically
      intelligible Luke A), and to explore some of its immediate ramifications for
      other open NT questions.

      Notice respectfully submitted,

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst

      Those who prefer to follow the course of the argument more slowly, as it
      appears in the media, may easily do so by acquiring, or suggesting that
      their library acquire, this journal:

      http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/index.html

      which approaches text problems in several corners of antiquity, from a
      consistent and rigorous grounding in standard humanistic methodology, the
      Luke-Acts matter being only one of several.
    • David Inglis
      Bruce, as you might expect, this is something in which I am very interested, and I would very much like to be included in the distribution of whatever
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 31, 2013
        Bruce, as you might expect, this is something in which I am very interested, and I would very much like to be included
        in the distribution of whatever materials become available. My work on Marcion’s gospel [Mcg] is virtually finished, and
        I am at the point where I can see NO reason for believing that Mcg is an edited (cut-down, but otherwise very little
        altered) version of what we know as Lk. What evidence there is for this view comes entirely from the opinions of people
        who (despite their best efforts) can find virtually nothing in the content of Mcg itself to support their view, and
        plenty of evidence that (they gleefully admit) Marcion had failed miserably in his supposed task of creating a gospel to
        support his Christology.



        What I find is that a large proportion of the text that Marcion supposedly removed from Lk is Sondergut Lk material that
        (on the basis that he specifically chose Lk as his starting point) he would not have wanted to removed, whereas instead
        he kept the majority of the material that Mk (and Mt) created, and the only way I can make sense of this and other
        phenomenon is that aLk added that material to Mcg. Given that Mcg did not contain Lk 1-2, has only ½ a verse (v. 3.1a)
        from Lk 3, excludes the genealogy, and reverses the order of Capernaum and Nazareth, my firm conclusion is that Mcg is a
        candidate for your ‘Luke A,’ or at least something very like it indeed, and that Tertullian’s copy of Lk could be Luke B
        (Tertullian and Epiphanius saw significantly different versions of Lk).



        I also find that Mcg > Matthew > Luke C, and am in the process of identifying all the places where we can tell that Mcg
        either has a more primitive text than Matthew, or where Mcg and Matthew can be seen to provide the two most significant
        variants in several verses of Lk. Although this last piece of work is not complete, most of it can be seen here
        Marcion's Gospel and the Synoptic Problem
        <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion/did-mcg-or-mt-come-first> , and I would welcome any comments
        you may have.



        David Inglis

        Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

        https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion



        From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E Bruce Brooks
        Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:08 AM
        To: Synoptic
        Cc: GPG; Alpha
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] The New Luke

        To: Synoptic
        On: The New Luke
        From: Bruce

        BACKGROUND

        Fitzmyer notes that Lk 1-2 cannot have been original, and that Luke must originally have begun with Lk 3:1. This implies
        a two-stage composition process for Luke. Separately, the Nazareth scene in Lk, which presently begins that text's
        account of Jesus' preaching, is obviously out of place, since the line "as you did in Capernaum" occurs before Jesus has
        even visited Capernaum. But since that line is not in the Mk Vorlage, it can only have been written by Luke, and only
        when that episode was in a noninitial position. It must thus have been relocated, taking that now-anomalous line with
        it, at a later period. This also, and independently, implies a two-stage composition process for Luke. Neither anomaly
        can be attributed to later scribes, and thus both must belong to the formation process (not the later, post-publication
        corruption process) of Luke.

        I take that as established. The corollary is that every treatment of Luke, including Goulder's New Paradigm, which
        assumes only one stage for the composition of Luke, will now need to be re-examined.

        If the two stages of Luke (A and B) occurred both before and after Matthew, so that we would have

        Luke A > Matthew > Luke B

        then there opens the possibility of a Synoptic situation in which bidirectionality in the Mt/Lk common material not
        derived from Mk can be explained without positing a conjectural outside text (variously called S or Q). This is more or
        less where the prospect gets interesting. Also of interest is the possibility of basing impressions of Luke and his
        theology (about which many books have been written, no two with the same conclusion) exclusively on his original,
        pre-Matthean writings, and not on material Luke wrote under the influence of Matthew and other subsequent developments.
        There is also the connection with Paul, who had died not long before, in c60 (for the pre-70 dating of Matthew, and
        thus, on present hypotheses, a fortiori of Luke A, see Gundry Matthew 599-609 ).

        This is more or less where matters stood in 2007, the time of my SBL presentation in the Luke-Acts section. Since that
        time, it has been found that it is necessary to posit a Luke C, consisting of additions made to Luke at the time Acts II
        was completed and added to the composite work.

        PROSPECT

        Things have continued since that time, these possibilities have been further developed, and the results have attracted
        some attention in the field, for their own interest and for the light they can shed on Paul (whose works have also been
        greatly clarified by the work of William Walker on interpolations in the genuine Paulines, an ongoing and vital
        project).

        What looks like happening in the next 18 months is that the Luke A/B/C construct will be considered by several
        interested specialists in Luke or in a closely related topic, at a series of small meetings to be held in connection
        with, or shortly before or after, regional and national meetings of SBL. Attendance at those meetings is invitational,
        though anyone interested in being invited is welcome to contact me off-list. In addition to the face meetings, the
        theory, as embodied in several published and prepublication articles, will be available for E-mail comment by members of
        the Alpha Christianity and GPG E-lists, and again, by other individuals who may like to identify themselves as
        interested. Posted materials for comment in this way include several published and prospective journal articles, and a
        complete if terse commentary on Luke from the ABC point of view, the third instalment of which is ready for posting to
        the unlisted Discussion page later this afternoon.

        In this way, we hope to show where this beginning leads to (and in particular, to show that it leads to a plausible and
        historically intelligible Luke A), and to explore some of its immediate ramifications for
        other open NT questions.

        Notice respectfully submitted,

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst

        Those who prefer to follow the course of the argument more slowly, as it
        appears in the media, may easily do so by acquiring, or suggesting that
        their library acquire, this journal:

        http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/index.html

        which approaches text problems in several corners of antiquity, from a
        consistent and rigorous grounding in standard humanistic methodology, the
        Luke-Acts matter being only one of several.





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        David, Thanks for your note and your interest; I think you will be getting the Discussion page URL via your membership in the small GPG group. The Marcion
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 31, 2013
          David,

          Thanks for your note and your interest; I think you will be getting the
          Discussion page URL via your membership in the small GPG group.

          The Marcion thing is of course tempting. You may recall my recent Pliny
          piece, which identified Sinope or its vicinity as the locale of Pliny's
          trials of accused Christians. Sinope, for all its success as a port, is one
          city away from the ends of the earth, Romanly speaking - the last stop on
          the train of Empire. Beyond that are dragons, or Parthians, or whatever. Was
          the Sinope (plus or minus one) community the kind of backwater in which an
          early circulating Luke might be retained, but which a later version might
          somehow not have reached? I note the earliness of some of the doctrinal
          points reported to Pliny (the commandment against fraud is almost a
          signature trait of the earliest Christian texts). And I suspect that the two
          women Pliny tortured for information on Christian practices were probably
          not chambermaids, but more likely deaconesses - the kind of thing that was
          known in the Pauline churches, but was strongly counterrecommended in the
          immediate postPauline literature (Haustafeln, starting with Colossians and
          also seen in the Pastorals). That counterrecommendation had evidently not
          reached Sinope, and if they were backward in that respect, why not other
          respects?

          Anyone can see that Lk 1-2 is an addition, and Marcion gets no special
          credit for removing it, to say nothing of its egregious Scripturalizing
          tendency - it reeks of Hebrew, and some have thought it a translation from a
          Hebrew original - just the thing M is supposed to have disliked. So also
          with several other passages. But for me, so far, the key is the pieces in
          what I call Luke C, the phase contemporaneous with Acts II, and responding
          to the exclusion of the Christians from the synagogues in c85 (so Torrey and
          a few others, see also in John 16:2). Some of those C passages seem also to
          have been present in the Marcion Luke, which to me (always assuming the
          correctness of the Luke C part of the construct) rules out the possibility
          of Marcion's having the Luke A text intact. I have to think he had Luke C,
          and cut it down according to his sense of what Christianity needed as a
          foundation text.

          There is a paragraph on that, at the end of my Acts-Luke paper, where I take
          up the Paffenroth attempt to rehabilitate the "L" text idea. To my eye, his
          revised L still includes material from different layers of Luke (including
          C), whereas if it were a source for Luke, one would expect those passages to
          be confined to Luke A. No? I get the sense that Luke, having once used a
          source (eg, Mark) did not return to it again.

          Anyway, I look forward to having your comments from the Marcion side of the
          table. We want all the countries to be heard from (see Mk 13:10, only
          reverse it), to give the construct a decently wide and varied lookover
          before calling up the New York Times. I am afraid I am not going to make my
          deadline of having the Luke 18-24 outline commentary up this PM (had to take
          time to answer your note, and one other), but anyway, soon.

          Best wishes,

          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.