24210RE: [XTalk] Re: Luke's use of his sources
- Jul 13, 2014On 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.
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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>