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

RE: [Synoptic-L] The New Luke

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , Jul 31, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      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

      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,


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