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

24210RE: [XTalk] Re: Luke's use of his sources

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    Jul 13, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      On Luke contracting his sources:

      Darrell Bock said: " Another, far more complex example is what happens with
      the Sermon on the Mount material (Luke has fewer beatitudes, has only one of
      the six but I say to you sayings are two examples there)"

      Is this not a questionable example? There is considerable agreement that the
      First Beatitude (some would add the Second) are more primitive in Luke; so
      also the Lord's Prayer, another feature of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount.
      The tendency of these examples is to suggest that Matthew's long sermon, in
      these instances and as a whole, may be secondary to Luke's much more compact
      one - besides scrubbing out the references to actual poverty, which is
      Luke's central concern, and substituting appropriately ethereal wording, so
      much more seemly for the ears of the well-to-do.


      Those who would like to sit down with this question of the Two Sermons are
      herewith invited to join others at the Alpha Christianity session at this
      year's SBL. Time: 8-10 PM Sunday, 23 Nov. Place not yet assigned. The
      Program Book is not out yet, but for convenience, I can repeat the listing

      "This open discussion meeting will explore a recent proposal for the Sermon
      on the Mount as derived from Luke's Sermon on the Plain, part of a non-Q
      analysis of the common Mt/Lk material. For the proposal and some early
      responses, see http://www.umass.edu/wsp/alpha/forum/index.html or contact

      (The web page in question does not yet contain the promised Sermon analysis;
      probably in August).

      The EGL meeting this spring considered a reconstruction of the Lukan Sermon
      on the Way (more usually called the Travel Narrative, though it has nothing
      to do with travel); the treatment of the Lukan Sermon on the Plain will
      complete this survey of Luke's major contributions to evolving Christian


      The essence of this approach is that Luke is both before and after Matthew,
      making it possible for material to have been transferred in both directions.
      Something like this has long been implicit in Fitzmyer's (and many others')
      judgement that Lk 1-2 is secondary in Luke, which originally began with the
      synchronisms of Lk 3:1f. If so, then for an entirely nonSynoptic reason, we
      are forced to posit two states of Luke, an earlier one which began with Lk
      3:1, and a later one, to which Lk 1-2 (and perhaps other material) had been
      added. Calling these Luke A and B, respectively, we would have in Synoptic

      Luka A > Matthew > Luke B

      I believe this to be a new idea, though those better acquainted Synoptically
      are encouraged to correct me.

      Respectfully suggested,


      E Bruce Brooks
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst


      What seems safer material for the purposes of Jeffrey's question is the
      Mk>Lk material. I find that Luke consistently tightens up Mark's narrative
      (whether or not in wording attributed to Jesus), presumably in the interest
      of greater narrative economy, including omission of Mark's nonfunctional
      specifics and repetitions.

      Lk 4:38, 5:30, 5:33, 6:13, 13:19 (vs Mk 4:31), 8:27 (vs Mk 5:4-5), 8:43,
      9:10, 18:40, etc

      Of course there are also examples of Luke expanding Mark; they are
      exceedingly interesting as indications of Luke's personal tendencies with
      his new and old material.
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic