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

Luke's 'Great Addition'

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    How has it escaped my notice that of the 350 verses of Lk from vv. 9:51 to 18:14, only (at a generous count) 24 have any parallel in Mk? Are there any
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 29 5:34 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      How has it escaped my notice that of the 350 verses of Lk from vv. 9:51 to 18:14, only (at a generous count) 24 have any
      parallel in Mk? Are there any treatments of this particular issue that are worth reading? Thank you.



      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jeff Peterson
      Michael Goulder, *Luke: A New Paradigm*, ad loc. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 29 5:37 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Michael Goulder, *Luke: A New Paradigm*, ad loc.


        On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:34 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > How has it escaped my notice that of the 350 verses of Lk from vv. 9:51 to
        > 18:14, only (at a generous count) 24 have any
        > parallel in Mk? Are there any treatments of this particular issue that are
        > worth reading? Thank you.
        >
        > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic Cc: GPG On: Mk in Lk 9:51-18:14 In Response To: David I From: Bruce David I: How has it escaped my notice that of the 350 verses of Lk from vv.
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 29 11:19 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          Cc: GPG
          On: Mk in Lk 9:51-18:14
          In Response To: David I
          From: Bruce

          David I: How has it escaped my notice that of the 350 verses of Lk from vv.
          9:51 to 18:14, only (at a generous count) 24 have any parallel in Mk?

          Bruce: The details have not escaped the eye of Huck-Throckmorton, and the
          relations can be seen on page xxiii and following of their widely available
          (if not perfect) Synopsis. Eliminating a few which are not listed directly
          opposite a Lukan entry (that is, by an UNgenerous count), I get 20. Same
          idea.

          As to the solution, for the past decade or so I have been suggesting, on
          this list, at SBL, and elsewhere, that the term "Luke" is ill-defined, and
          that in particular it is not valid to build a scenario for Luke on the
          assumption that this Gospel was written all at one time, out of a single and
          consistently realized authorial intention. On the evidence (repeatedly
          mentioned in earlier notes and not here repeated), we must posit at least
          two stages, which I call Luke A and B. (There is a third, Luke C, but for
          present purposes it will suffice to distinguish only the first two).

          In B, and only in B, Luke is affected by a number of new ideas, some of them
          coming from contact with Matthew, and some from other considerations. My
          list, annotated in that way, would be as follows. Echoes of what is usually
          called Luke's Great Omission (Mk 6:47b-8:11a) are preceded by an Asterisk;
          these are known not from Mark but are derived secondarily from Matthew (see
          the passage cited). Notice the frequency of relocated passages in this list.
          These, in their original (Markan) position, belonged to Luke A, but the
          relocation, and any rewriting done at that time, belong to Luke B. There are
          also several places in which Luke, like Matthew before him, has re-used
          Mark-derived material appearing elsewhere in Luke (a prime example is the
          Sending of the Seventy, part of Luke B, which cannibalizes the Sending of
          the Twelve, already present in Luke A). Here is the first half of that list:

          10:1-16. Sending Seventy. New idea (Gentile Mission). B
          10:17-20. Return of Seventy. Ditto. B
          10:25-28. Lawyer's Question. Relocated in Luke. B
          11:14-23. Beelzebul Accusation. Relocated in Luke. B
          *11:29-32. Sign for This Generation (Mk 8:11-12, but here < Mt 12:38-42). B
          11:33-36. Concerning Light (Mk 4:21, but here < Mt 5:15, 6:22-23). B
          11:37-12:1. Against Pharisees. < Mt 23:4-36. B
          12:2-12. Exhortation to Confession. < Mt 10:19f, 26f. B
          12:35-46. Watchfulness. Probably original in Luke A, > Mt
          12:49-56. Interpreting the Present. Probably original in Luke A, > Mt

          And so on. In general, there seem to be three sources of Luke B material:
          (a) Matthew, (b) reuse of previous Markan material, and (c) doublet based on
          previous Markan material. I see no second access to the original (Luke A)
          Markan Vorlage. The relocations in Luke B then resolve into two classes:
          those which do not give rise to doublets in Luke, and those which do.

          I should add that already in Luke A there are relocations of Markan
          material; these are done to straighten out the tortuous narrative line in
          Mark, or to remove inconsistencies resulting from the layered structure of
          Mark. They are a tidying operation, in the interest of proper sequence
          (taxis). Luke A's carefully considered relocations do not result in
          narrative inconcinnities; Luke B's often do. Matthew, be it noted, also
          tampers with the taxis of Mark, though in different ways, resulting from his
          own quite different agenda.

          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.