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

Luke's use of his sources

Expand Messages
  • Jgibson
    Can anyone here give me examples of Luke s shortening the length of the sayings of Jesus that he found in Mark and Q (or, hello Mark G, Matthew)? With thanks
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 12, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      Can anyone here give me examples of Luke's shortening the length of the sayings of Jesus that he found in Mark and Q  (or, hello Mark G, Matthew)?

      With thanks in advance,

      Jeffrey

      -- 
      ---
      Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.
      1500 W.  Pratt Blvd
      Chicago, IL
      jgibson000@...
    • Gary Greenberg
      Not sure if this qualifies but I was just working on it. In Luke s account of the Last Supper he breaks up Mark s account of the passing of the cup into two
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 12, 2014
      • 0 Attachment
        Not sure if this qualifies but I was just working on it.
         
        In Luke's account of the Last Supper he breaks up Mark's account of the passing of the cup into two separate passings of the cup. In the first he truncates Mark's Jesus quote. In the second passing of the cup he adds in what appears to be Paul's description of what Jesus said after passing the cup, which is a reordered phrasing of what Luke left out of the first quote.

        Gary Greenberg
        Author of
        101 Myths of the Bible
        The Moses Mystery
         

         

        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        CC: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com; biblical-studies@yahoogroups.com
        From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 14:11:28 -0500
        Subject: [XTalk] Luke's use of his sources

         
        Can anyone here give me examples of Luke's shortening the length of the sayings of Jesus that he found in Mark and Q  (or, hello Mark G, Matthew)?

        With thanks in advance,

        Jeffrey

        -- 
        ---
        Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.
        1500 W.  Pratt Blvd
        Chicago, IL
        jgibson000@...


      • Darrell Bock
        Jeffrey: It does not happen often that I am aware, because Matthew tends to contract (at least vis-avis Mark), but the cluster of sayings in Luke 12:1-7 may
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 13, 2014
        • 0 Attachment
          Jeffrey:

          It does not happen often that I am aware, because Matthew tends to contract (at least vis-avis Mark), but the cluster of sayings in Luke 12:1-7 may have some examples. 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)


          Darrell Bock

          Senior Research Professor of New Testament

          Dallas Theological Seminary
        • Jgibson
          ... Thanks for this, Darrel! Jeffrey -- ... Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon. 1500 W. Pratt Blvd Chicago, IL jgibson000@comcast.net
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 13, 2014
          • 0 Attachment
            On 7/13/2014 9:09 PM, Darrell Bock DBockDTS@... [crosstalk2] wrote:
            > Jeffrey:
            >
            > It does not happen often that I am aware, because Matthew tends to contract (at least vis-avis Mark), but the cluster of sayings in Luke 12:1-7 may have some examples. 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)
            >
            >
            > Darrell Bock

            Thanks for this, Darrel!

            Jeffrey

            --
            ---
            Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.
            1500 W. Pratt Blvd
            Chicago, IL
            jgibson000@...
          • E Bruce Brooks
            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
            Message 5 of 8 , 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.

              INVITATION

              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
              here:

              "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
              ebbrooks@...."

              (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
              theory.

              BACKGROUND

              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
              terms:

              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,

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst

              ALTERNATE SUGGESTION

              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.
            • Darrell Bock
              Bruce: Your notes are the very reason I said this was a more complex example as what exactly is going on and which sources are being used (or even shared) are
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 14, 2014
              • 0 Attachment
                Bruce:

                Your notes are the very reason I said this was a more complex example as what exactly is going on and which sources are being used (or even shared) are quite debated.

                As to your other list:

                Luke 4:38- not a saying
                Luke:5;30 uncertain if shorter versus merely recast
                Luke 5:33- Longer eat and drink
                Luke 6:13- not a saying
                Luke 13:19- shorter AND in a very distinct context
                Luke 8:27- Not a saying. This entire miracle is much shorter than Mark's version
                8:43- Not a saying.
                9:10- Not a saying
                18:40- Not a saying.

                You are right that narratively sometimes Luke contracts or expands (Great example of expansion is the synagogue scene in Mark 6 and end of Matt 13 versus Luke 4). But the issue of whether Jesus' saying material is treated distinctly than narrative materrial is worth pursuing. 

                Darrell Bock

                Senior Research Professor of New Testament

                Dallas Theological Seminary




              • E Bruce Brooks
                If we confine ourselves to Markan words of Jesus present also in Luke, and if we exclude Lukan passages which I have found reason to think were later rewritten
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 14, 2014
                • 0 Attachment

                  If we confine ourselves to Markan words of Jesus present also in Luke, and if we exclude Lukan passages which I have found reason to think were later rewritten (and typically expanded) in Lk (my Luke B), the material is limited, but not without interest. Some samples from Mk 1-5.

                   

                  Mk 1:38 > Lk 4:43. Luke longer by the addition of a clarifying clause

                  Mk 2:11 > Lk 5:24. Luke replaces the vulgar word krabbatos, otherwise same

                  Mk 2:17b > Lk 5:32. Luke longer by the addition of an explanatory phrase

                  Mk 3:3 > Lk 6:8b. Luke longer by the addition of a clarifying phrase.

                  Mk 3:4 > Lk 6:9. Luke longer by an introductory phrase.

                  Mk 3:23 > Lk 11:17. Luke omits first question

                  Mk 3:25 > Lk 11:17. Luke omits or condenses into preceding sentence

                  Mk 3:26 > Lk 11:18. Luke omits last line of Mark

                       >  Lk 11:18. Luke adds a whole paragraph not in Mark

                  Mk 3:27 ? Lk11:22. Luke longer by the addition of detail

                  Mk 3:28-29 > Lk 12:10. Luke much abbreviated

                  Mk 3:33-34 > Lk 8:21. Luke much abbreviated

                  Mk 4:5 > Lk 8:6. Luke much abbreviated

                  Mk 4:8 > Lk 8:8. Luke much abbreviated

                  Mk 4:12 > Lk 8:10. Luke much abbreviated

                  Mk 4:13-14 > Lk 8:11. Luke much abbreviated

                  Mk 4:17 > Lk 8:14. Luke slightly abbreviated

                  Mk 4:21 > Lk 8:16. Luke longer by the addition of a clarifying clause

                  Mk 4:24 > Lk 8:18. Luke considerably abbreviated

                  Mk 5:19 > Lk 39. Luke considerably abbreviated

                  Mk 5:30 > Lk 8:46. Luke rephrases, and adds an explanatory clause

                   

                  This small sample tends to suggest that Luke treated Jesus sayings not that differently from how he treated Mark’s narrative material: sometimes expanding it for clarity, sometimes shortening it for narrative concision, sometimes reproducing it with little or no change.

                   

                  A full quantitative survey would probably reveal that Luke modified Marks Jesus material less than he modified Mark’s narrative, but I think the above will show that he did not hold Jesus sayings in complete respect, but treated them in much the same way he treated everything else in Mark. When he modifies them, he seems to do so for the same reasons that are implied in his treatment of Markan narrative.

                   

                  It should be also in the equation that Luke *invented* a lot of Jesus material, both in his Sermon on the Plain (which I see as anterior to Matthew’s expansion as the Sermon on the Mount), and even more in his very long Sermon on the Way (even after the intrusive Luke B Matthean addenda have been eliminated). If we imagine Luke as using a separate Jesus Sayings Source, and treating it with greater respect than any other source, extant or conjectured, then these additions surely pose a problem.

                   

                  Bruce

                   

                  E Bruce Brooks

                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                   

                   

                • Ronald Price
                  Jeffrey Gibson wrote: Can anyone here give me examples of Luke s shortening the length of the sayings of Jesus that he found in Mark and Q (or, hello Mark G,
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jul 14, 2014
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Re: Luke's use of his sources Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

                    Can anyone here give me examples of Luke's shortening the length of the sayings of Jesus that he found in Mark and Q  (or, hello Mark G, Matthew)?

                    Jeffrey,

                    Your question raises two problems in the mind of an outsider looking at the standard Two-Source Theory.

                    Firstly if Luke had made any substantial shortening of a saying (relative to Matthew’s version) when copying Q, then the text which Matthew included but Luke omitted would be assigned to ‘M’ and not to ‘Q’. It is thus an inherent assumption of the 2ST that Luke never substantially shortened a pericope in Q.

                    Secondly Q theorists tend to have a bias in favour of Luke, with the effect that a shortening by Luke is often deemed by them to be a lengthening by Matthew. I will give four examples.

                    (1) I’m confident that there were originally seven beatitudes to match the seven woes, not the four beatitudes assumed by CrEdQ etc..

                    (2) “so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Mt 10:16b) completed the original ‘lambs among wolves’ saying.

                    (3) “You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Mt 23:24) is typical hyperbole, and is necessary to complete the original balance of the stanza on tithes.

                    (4) Similarly Mt 23:30 & 23:32 are necessary to complete the originally balanced stanza on memorials.

                    Ron Price,

                    Derbyshire, UK

                    http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html

                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.