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

Re: [GTh] Lk 5:39

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: GThomas In Response To: Richard Godwin On: Lk 5:39 From: Bruce RICHARD: So you say placed as an addition at the end shown GLuke came before
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 28, 2011
      To: GThomas
      In Response To: Richard Godwin
      On: Lk 5:39
      From: Bruce
       
      RICHARD: So you say placed as an addition at the end shown GLuke came before GThomas?--likelihood.  I think not.  Note v. 39 is not in Codex Bezae.
       
      BRUCE: Don't understand objection; in particular, absence in Bezae is confirmatory, not adverse. Herewith restate position.
       
      1. Bezae preserves at some points a text less interpolated than the ancestor of Vaticanus. It thus lacks some very early interpolations (the Western Non). Lk 5:39 fits that pattern (lacking in Bezae), and is thus not original in Lk, though early interpolated.
       
      2. Lk 5:39 is problematic as it stands, since it reverses the meaning of what precedes (and what all the Synoptics have). On those grounds too, it is an interpolation.
       
      3. Marcion (before 150) had generally opposed Christian reliance on "old" (Jewish) traditions, and in harmony with Lk 5:37-38 in particular, had insisted on the newness of Christianity. This is a position which may be seen as a development of that of Paul, who denied the efficacy of the Jewish Law to procure salvation, and Marcion's theology, and canon, are exclusively Pauline - Luke plus the ten then recognized Pauline Epistles. Marcion's opponents refused to follow him, preferring to retain the OT underpinning of Christianity as it was then understood. BIg controversy, still raging centuries later.
       
      4. Then Lk 5:39 is intelligible as an anti-Marcionite interpolation in Lk, designed to counter the use being made of Lk 5:37-38 by Marcion and his followers. I can find no other scenario which makes sense of the presence of Lk 5:39.
       
      5. Thos 47 unmistakably uses Lk 5:39.
       
      6. Lk 5:39 was not part of Lk until c150 at earliest.
       
      7. Then Thos 47, and everything in gThos which is in that same layer, or in any later later, is later than c150.
       
      Where's the flaw?
       
      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.