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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: "Lord's Prayer" & the 3SH

Expand Messages
  • Carl W. Conrad
    ... I was appalled to see the heavy-handed rhetoric in: the greatest compliment an author can pay to a predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his work. Of
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      At 8:17 AM -0500 11/1/99, Thomas R. W. Longstaff wrote:
      >> In Ron's world, I guess, the greatest compliment an author can pay to a
      >> predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his work. I don't believe
      >> this.
      >>
      >> Leonard Maluf
      >
      >I have been reading this thread with some interest - and also restraint.
      >Of course the modern concept of plagiarism was unknown in the ancient
      >world. The ownership of intellectual property is a rather modern notion.
      >Modern authors do acknowledge their sources, and do so in a manner that was
      >not unknown but far less common in antiquity. Indeed, the creative use
      >of another's words was an important aspect of "authorship" in the ancient
      >world. Imposing the concepts of "authorship" and "plagiarism" as we
      >understand and define them in the twentieth century, it seems to me,
      >blurs rather than understands what authorship meant in the first century.
      >
      >In the modern world copying would not be the greatest compliment that
      >an author could pay to a predecessor. I agree. Laying aside the innuendo
      >about "Ron's world," the question would be how copying another's words
      >would be understood in the first century. As one who has examined
      >conflation as a technique employed by ancient (and not so ancient)
      >authors, I am not convinced that Leonard Maluf's use of these modern
      >concepts is an appropriate analogy to authorship in the ancient world.

      I was appalled to see the heavy-handed rhetoric in: "the greatest
      compliment an author can pay to a predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his
      work." Of course plagiarism is not in question, but the ancient literary
      tradition depends upon the author's expectation that reader will recognize
      the deft reformulation of phraseology from a predecessor and understand it
      both as a compliment to the predecessor and as authentic originality on the
      part of the author. I think this is a fairly well-known truth about Greek
      and Latin literature, but I rather think that the echoes of the earlier
      prophets in Deuteronomy and the recurrent "repetitions with a difference"
      of Old Testament texts in the New Testament. The author of Revelation is a
      master at this, and I would readily assume that every one of the composers
      of gospels were doing the same thing--and this does not mean at all that
      they weren't authors. Is it possible that this hasn't entered at all into
      considerations about synoptic gospel relationships? Of course it's not that
      simple a matter to determine which direction the literary comment is going
      but to me, at least, it would seem very strange that such adoption of
      phraseology of one evangelist by another with slight alterations that
      transform its meaning should NOT be a factor in synoptic relationships.


      Carl W. Conrad
      Department of Classics/Washington University
      One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
      Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
      cwconrad@...
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... I agree, and yet it is rare to see appreciation of this factor in the discussion of synoptic interrelationships. One of the few places I have seen it
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        On 1 Nov 99, at 8:16, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

        > Is it possible that this hasn't
        > entered at all into considerations about synoptic gospel relationships? Of
        > course it's not that simple a matter to determine which direction the
        > literary comment is going but to me, at least, it would seem very strange
        > that such adoption of phraseology of one evangelist by another with slight
        > alterations that transform its meaning should NOT be a factor in synoptic
        > relationships.

        I agree, and yet it is rare to see appreciation of this factor in the
        discussion of synoptic interrelationships. One of the few places I have
        seen it explored is in Mark Matson's as yet unpublished piece
        available on his web site, "Luke as Dialogue with Previous Gospels",
        http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/people/faculty/matson/Bauckham.html.
        It is something I have touched on myself too, especially in relation to
        Luke's prologue, which may imply that Luke expected his readers to
        engage with his gospel in the light of their reading of the work of his
        predecessors. It is one of the directions in which I would like to see
        future synoptic study developing. Contemporary interest in narrative-
        criticism and intertextuality might be the catalyst for such
        developments.

        Mark
        --------------------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
        Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
        The New Testament Gateway
        Mark Without Q
        Aseneth Home Page
      • Steven Craig Miller
        To: Leonard Maluf, SCM:
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Leonard Maluf,

          SCM: << : If Luke knew two editions of the "Lord's Prayer," one being the
          Matthean version, it is "more probable" that he too (like the rest of
          Christendom) would have preferred the Matthean version over his own version. >>

          ML: << Luke may well have LIKED Matthew's version better, and used it
          elsewere, liturgically etc., rather than his own. But he was simply
          following the standard writing practice of Hellenistic authorship when he
          renounced reproducing Matthew's form of the Lord's Prayer, with its
          seven-fold structure, within his own Gospel. >>

          You seem now to want to suggest that although Luke knew Matthew's version
          of the "Lord's Prayer," he was bound by a Hellenistic writers code to
          re-write everything he used, and unfortunately Luke lacked the creative
          genius to improve on Matthew's version (although later scribes we able to
          do so) and so was forced to submit his butchered version of the "Lord's
          Prayer" instead of Matthew's version.

          First of all, Matthew's version of the "Lord's Prayer," is 61 words (using
          NA27). But according to the Griesbach hypothesis, Luke copied 63 words from
          Matthew at Mt 3:7b-10 // Lk 3:7b-9 almost verbatim (i.e., with a few minor
          changes). So such (almost) verbatim copying is not impossible, even with
          Luke's supposed Hellenistic writers code. Furthermore, I would suggest that
          a prayer from Jesus would have had greater value to Luke than John the
          Baptist's preaching on repentance (Lk 3:7b-9) and no "Hellenistic writers
          code" could have prevented Luke from copying all 61 words if Luke so desired.

          Second, I find it hard to believe that Luke, if he was using Matthew's
          gospel as a source, didn't have the creative genius to actually improve on
          Matthew's version. After all, later scribes were able to modify Matthew's
          version and thus "improve" Matthew's version.

          Finally, you suggest that Luke "may" have liked Matthew's version better,
          and "may" have even used it liturgically. This too I find hard to reconcile
          with what Luke actually wrote. Luke writes that one of Jesus disciples
          asked Jesus: "Lord, teach us to pray." And Luke claims that Jesus responds
          by saying: "When you pray, say: ..." Was Luke then supposed to turn around
          and tell his congregation that one should not use the prayer which Jesus
          gave them, instead one should use this much better prayer that he had
          learned from Matthew? IMO one should not forget that these gospels were
          propaganda (in the good sense of the term) pieces! They were meant to be
          taken seriously and to influence people's behavior. If Luke puts a
          liturgical prayer in the mouth of Jesus, it would be safe to assume (IMO)
          that Luke meant for people to actually use that prayer.

          In my opinion, the "Lord's Prayer" is a serious weakness in both the
          Owens-Griesbach and Farrer-Goulder hypotheses. Of course, no one issue will
          make or break any hypothesis.

          -Steven Craig Miller
          Alton, Illinois (USA)
          scmiller@...

          "Refutations have often been regarded as establishing the failure of a
          scientist, or at least his theory. It should be stressed that this is an
          inductivist error. Every refutation should be regarded as a great success;
          not merely a success of the scientist who refuted the theory, but also of
          the scientist who created the refuted theory and who thus in the first
          instance suggested, if only indirectly, the refuting experiment" (Karl R.
          Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations," 243).
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 11/1/1999 9:28:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes:
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 11/1/1999 9:28:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            cwconrad@... writes:

            << I was appalled to see the heavy-handed rhetoric in: "the greatest
            compliment an author can pay to a predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his
            work." Of course plagiarism is not in question, but the ancient literary
            tradition depends upon the author's expectation that reader will recognize
            the deft reformulation of phraseology from a predecessor and understand it
            both as a compliment to the predecessor and as authentic originality on the
            part of the author. I think this is a fairly well-known truth about Greek
            and Latin literature, but I rather think that the echoes of the earlier
            prophets in Deuteronomy and the recurrent "repetitions with a difference"
            of Old Testament texts in the New Testament. The author of Revelation is a
            master at this, and I would readily assume that every one of the composers
            of gospels were doing the same thing--and this does not mean at all that
            they weren't authors. Is it possible that this hasn't entered at all into
            considerations about synoptic gospel relationships? Of course it's not that
            simple a matter to determine which direction the literary comment is going
            but to me, at least, it would seem very strange that such adoption of
            phraseology of one evangelist by another with slight alterations that
            transform its meaning should NOT be a factor in synoptic relationships.
            >>

            I don't see the relevancy of any of this to what I said in the original
            posting. Nor do I quite understand what you are saying. If you are intending
            to communicate with me (and I am honestly not sure from the above that you
            are) could you please express yourself in a few sentences that make your
            point and that address directly points I had made? Thanks.

            Perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying in the sentence you cite as
            containing appalling, heavy handed rhetoric. Ron is of the opinion (and has
            said so more than once on this list) that ALk did not care much for the
            Gospel of Matthew. His opinion, as I read him, is based mainly on the fact
            that, according to his Synoptic theory, Luke did not copy much directly from
            Matt. I was trying to say that copying someone's work is not the only way to
            pay that person a compliment. Let me give you an example. In Matt 9:13 we
            find the words of Jesus: "Go and learn what this means: 'I will have mercy
            and not sacrifice'". Luke did not copy these words. Instead, he probably paid
            AMt the far greater compliment of obeying them, and we have the results of
            Luke's research on the theme "mercy and not sacrifice" in the OT in the
            magnificent parable of the Good Samaritan.

            Leonard Maluf
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 11/1/1999 12:31:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, scmiller@www.plantnet.com writes:
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 11/1/1999 12:31:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
              scmiller@... writes:

              <<
              LM: < Luke may well have LIKED Matthew's version better, and used it
              elsewere, liturgically etc., rather than his own. But he was simply
              following the standard writing practice of Hellenistic authorship when he
              renounced reproducing Matthew's form of the Lord's Prayer, with its
              seven-fold structure, within his own Gospel. >

              << You seem now to want to suggest that although Luke knew Matthew's version
              of the "Lord's Prayer," he was bound by a Hellenistic writers code to
              re-write everything he used, and unfortunately Luke lacked the creative
              genius to improve on Matthew's version (although later scribes we able to
              do so) and so was forced to submit his butchered version of the "Lord's
              Prayer" instead of Matthew's version.>>

              I am tempted here to use your favorite phrase (inflamatory rhetoric) with
              reference to your last comment. On a more substantive note, I suggested, if
              you recall, that Luke's version was in one sense better than Matthew's: it
              illustrated better the point made by the Matthean Jesus that it is not
              necessary to use many words when praying to the Father.

              << First of all, Matthew's version of the "Lord's Prayer," is 61 words (using
              NA27). But according to the Griesbach hypothesis, Luke copied 63 words from
              Matthew at Mt 3:7b-10 // Lk 3:7b-9 almost verbatim (i.e., with a few minor
              changes). So such (almost) verbatim copying is not impossible, even with
              Luke's supposed Hellenistic writers code.>>

              This is an interesting point, and it illustrates how difficult it is to do
              anything of this kind in a format like this. Although I didn't write on this
              topic in this particular posting, of course I am aware of passages that
              exhibit extended exact verbatim copying between Luke and Matt. As I have said
              a few times before, though, this kind of copying (of Matt by Luke) takes
              place only in sayings material, and it extends over more than a few words
              only in cases where such material is relatively unstructured. If you will
              kindly examine carefully the entire pericope on John the Baptist in its Lukan
              form, compared to that found in Matt, you will note that the material as a
              whole has been thoroughly restructured, with ALL the "structures" of the
              Matthean text removed, and replaced with new structuring elements in Luke.
              Thus, the pericope (as a whole) illustrates very well the main point I was
              making, in spite of the extensive verbal agreement in sayings material that
              occurs within it.

              <<Furthermore, I would suggest that
              a prayer from Jesus would have had greater value to Luke than John the
              Baptist's preaching on repentance (Lk 3:7b-9) and no "Hellenistic writers
              code" could have prevented Luke from copying all 61 words if Luke so
              desired.>>

              OK. This argument will undoubtedly appeal to some, and it is not unreasonable
              in itself. However, consider the following: when Luke cites from any OT
              passage of a length comparable to the Lord's Prayer, he invariably names his
              source (often through the mouth of a character in his story). Of course
              Matthew was not a work Luke intended to "cite" in this way. In Hellenistic
              writing, a "model" that was being used as the basis of imitation writing was,
              by convention, NOT mentioned by the author using that model (think of the
              Epistle to the Ephesians, or 2 Pet, or Virgil's Aeneid). For example, Luke
              does not cite the Books of Samuel by name when he uses them as partial models
              for his infancy stories, or the prophecy of Ezekiel when he is writing about
              Peter and the sheet in Acts. The decision to write a new Gospel, modeled on
              the popular Gospel already in existence (Matt), thus already dictates what
              Luke will do when he comes to the structured "saying" of Jesus that we now
              know as the "Our Father". He will reproduce it in substance, but with an
              altered form.

              <<Second, I find it hard to believe that Luke, if he was using Matthew's
              gospel as a source, didn't have the creative genius to actually improve on
              Matthew's version. After all, later scribes were able to modify Matthew's
              version and thus "improve" Matthew's version.>>

              Again, this involves a subjective judgment about the quality of Luke's work,
              and ignores the subtlety of what Luke is doing here with respect to the
              discussion on prayer in Matt 6.

              << Finally, you suggest that Luke "may" have liked Matthew's version better,
              and "may" have even used it liturgically. This too I find hard to reconcile
              with what Luke actually wrote.>>

              You need a little time for this idea to ripen. I see it is too new for you as
              yet. It will seem less difficult after you have been convinced that what I am
              saying about the conventions of Hellenistic writing is valid.

              << IMO one should not forget that these gospels were
              propaganda (in the good sense of the term) pieces! They were meant to be
              taken seriously and to influence people's behavior. If Luke puts a
              liturgical prayer in the mouth of Jesus, it would be safe to assume (IMO)
              that Luke meant for people to actually use that prayer.>>

              You are guilty of anachronism here. We don't really know when even Matthew's
              form of the "Lord's Prayer" began to be used "liturgically". I know it is
              hard for us to imagine that there was ever a time when it wasn't, but this is
              nevertheless a distinct possibility. Remember that in Matt, Jesus has just
              made the statement that when we pray, we should enter into our chamber and
              closing the door pray to our Father in secret. This does not describe
              "liturgical" prayer.

              Leonard Maluf
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 11/1/1999 8:23:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, t_longst@colby.edu writes:
              Message 6 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 11/1/1999 8:23:09 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                t_longst@... writes:

                << In the modern world copying would not be the greatest compliment that
                an author could pay to a predecessor. I agree. Laying aside the innuendo
                about "Ron's world," the question would be how copying another's words
                would be understood in the first century. As one who has examined
                conflation as a technique employed by ancient (and not so ancient)
                authors, I am not convinced that Leonard Maluf's use of these modern
                concepts is an appropriate analogy to authorship in the ancient world.
                >>

                I never meant to suggest that these concepts applied in the same way in the
                ancient world than they do today. Nevertheless, the above observations are
                very much on target with respect to the type of dialogue I hoped my remarks
                would generate. Conflation was indeed a common literary procedure in
                antiquity (and one, by the way, employed very frequently by Luke, as well as
                by Mark in my understanding of the 2 GH), but I wonder if one wouldn't have
                to distinguish between significantly different types of conflation, the
                essential difference being in how literally the employed sources were
                reproduced. I do not think that authors who simply incorporated into their
                works large portions of the works of predecessors, with only minor
                alterations (as Mark does, according to the 2 GH) were in fact regarded on
                anything like a par with authors who were far more creative, but also
                employed abstract literary models, and used minor conflationary touches as
                one of many sophicated writing tools. In other words, literary critics
                roughly contemporary with the Evangelists, such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus
                and Quintilian, certainly differentiated clearly between great writers, on
                the one hand, and quite mediocre authors on the other. I suspect that you
                will not find among those they regarded as great, authors whose writings are
                known to involve extensive and fairly literal copying from older sources.

                Leonard Maluf
              • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                ... as ... have ... Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Quite a few studies have been published over the last thirty to forty years providing, I think,
                Message 7 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  > ............... Conflation was indeed a common literary procedure in
                  > antiquity (and one, by the way, employed very frequently by Luke, as well
                  as
                  > by Mark in my understanding of the 2 GH), but I wonder if one wouldn't
                  have
                  > to distinguish between significantly different types of conflation, the
                  > essential difference being in how literally the employed sources were
                  > reproduced.

                  Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

                  Quite a few studies have been published over the last thirty to forty years
                  providing, I think, clear evidence that authors who conflate do so in
                  different ways, i.e., that there are, indeed, significantly different types
                  of conflation. Could you be more specific about the discussion that you wish
                  to stimulate to advance the discussion of this issue and help us better to
                  understand the process of conflation?

                  Thank you.

                  Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                  Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
                  Director, African-American Studies Program
                  Colby College
                • Carl W. Conrad
                  ... If I misunderstood you, I apologize; I took the opening comment as intentional sarcasm and what followed in the above paragraph as denying that repetition
                  Message 8 of 15 , Nov 2, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 8:10 PM -0500 11/1/99, Maluflen@... wrote:
                    >In a message dated 11/1/1999 9:28:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                    >cwconrad@... writes:
                    >
                    ><< I was appalled to see the heavy-handed rhetoric in: "the greatest
                    > compliment an author can pay to a predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his
                    > work." Of course plagiarism is not in question, but the ancient literary
                    > tradition depends upon the author's expectation that reader will recognize
                    > the deft reformulation of phraseology from a predecessor and understand it
                    > both as a compliment to the predecessor and as authentic originality on the
                    > part of the author. I think this is a fairly well-known truth about Greek
                    > and Latin literature, but I rather think that the echoes of the earlier
                    > prophets in Deuteronomy and the recurrent "repetitions with a difference"
                    > of Old Testament texts in the New Testament. The author of Revelation is a
                    > master at this, and I would readily assume that every one of the composers
                    > of gospels were doing the same thing--and this does not mean at all that
                    > they weren't authors. Is it possible that this hasn't entered at all into
                    > considerations about synoptic gospel relationships? Of course it's not that
                    > simple a matter to determine which direction the literary comment is going
                    > but to me, at least, it would seem very strange that such adoption of
                    > phraseology of one evangelist by another with slight alterations that
                    > transform its meaning should NOT be a factor in synoptic relationships.
                    > >>
                    >
                    >I don't see the relevancy of any of this to what I said in the original
                    >posting. Nor do I quite understand what you are saying. If you are intending
                    >to communicate with me (and I am honestly not sure from the above that you
                    >are) could you please express yourself in a few sentences that make your
                    >point and that address directly points I had made? Thanks.

                    At 6:14 AM -0500 11/1/99, Maluflen@... wrote:
                    >In a message dated 11/1/1999 5:28:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                    >ron.price@... writes:
                    >
                    ><< Au_Luke (not the 'last redactor') had less respect for Matthew than for
                    > his other two sources >>
                    >
                    >In Ron's world, I guess, the greatest compliment an author can pay to a
                    >predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his work. I don't believe this. By the
                    >way, do you know any modern authors who copy others' work? (No. Of course you
                    >don't. It's people who can't write who copy.) An author who wishes to
                    >maintain any kind of respectability takes care to really author his work. If
                    >he (she) takes material from a source, he attributes that material to the
                    >source employed OR significantly re-structures, re-forms it. (The missing
                    >premise in the above is, of course, that I believe Luke was an author).

                    If I misunderstood you, I apologize; I took the opening comment as
                    intentional sarcasm and what followed in the above paragraph as denying
                    that repetition of another's phraseology with subtle alteration was in fact
                    a standard practice in antiquity, particularly in a society wherein
                    literary texts are composed to be heard and important ones are committed to
                    memory. My own intention was to state a proposition to the contrary of what
                    I took you to be rejecting with contempt, and I was not really (and should
                    perhaps have made this clear) commenting on the substance of your exchange
                    with Ron Price.

                    Again: At 8:10 PM -0500 11/1/99, Maluflen@... wrote
                    >Perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying in the sentence you cite as
                    >containing appalling, heavy handed rhetoric. Ron is of the opinion (and has
                    >said so more than once on this list) that ALk did not care much for the
                    >Gospel of Matthew. His opinion, as I read him, is based mainly on the fact
                    >that, according to his Synoptic theory, Luke did not copy much directly from
                    >Matt. I was trying to say that copying someone's work is not the only way to
                    >pay that person a compliment. Let me give you an example. In Matt 9:13 we
                    >find the words of Jesus: "Go and learn what this means: 'I will have mercy
                    >and not sacrifice'". Luke did not copy these words. Instead, he probably paid
                    >AMt the far greater compliment of obeying them, and we have the results of
                    >Luke's research on the theme "mercy and not sacrifice" in the OT in the
                    >magnificent parable of the Good Samaritan.

                    I appreciate this example, although I don't really believe that Luke's use
                    of the parable of the Good Samaritan in his gospel was inspired by his
                    reading of Matthew's gospel and I wonder whether you do either? Well, if
                    you think this is a consequence of Luke's research into that theme in the
                    OT, perhaps you really do believe that, and perhaps you believe that the
                    parable of the Good Samaritan is Luke's own creation, a possibility I would
                    certainly not reject out of hand. I think that compassion is a powerful
                    theme in both gospels, but I don't think that Luke derived it from Matthew
                    or vice versa. I might add, for what it's worth, that I believe all three
                    of the Synoptic evangelists were authors in the sense you are using the
                    word, and Mark not the least of them. Increasingly I think that the great
                    difficulty in reaching any real consensus on Synoptic relationships derives
                    from the fact each of the evangelists--whether or not we think of the
                    finished gospels as undergoing one or more redactions--was quite creative
                    with the traditional materials at his disposal.


                    Carl W. Conrad
                    Department of Classics/Washington University
                    One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
                    Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
                    cwconrad@...
                    WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
                  • Petros Boyd
                    One of the few places I have ... Thanks for calling our attention to this very interesting note. If Luke s preface is compared with that of Josephus, the
                    Message 9 of 15 , Nov 6, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      One of the few places I have
                      > seen it explored is in Mark Matson's as yet unpublished piece
                      > available on his web site, "Luke as Dialogue with Previous Gospels",
                      > http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/people/faculty/matson/Bauckham.html.

                      Thanks for calling our attention to this very interesting note.
                      If Luke's preface is compared with that of Josephus, the question arises
                      whether the intention of his gospel is to 'correct' possibly misleading data
                      in the earlier undertakings. So the promise to write akribos and kathexes
                      confirms serious and even critical engagement with already published works.

                      On the question of naive readers, how would we assess Theophilus?
                      Luke writes so that he may have asphaleia ['safety' or 'certainty' ?] in the
                      matters in which he has received instruction. The instruction left him still
                      needing information that is guranteed. Clearly Theophilus could have been
                      his literary patron. If so the community aspect tends to fall into the
                      back-ground.. Yet the claim that he the events 'have been fulfilled among
                      us' suggests that the community context is not totally absent.
                      But is there any need for an either/or on this question? Why not
                      'both /and' We have to balance the cost of publication which might need
                      the kind of financial support a community could give to a costly undertaking
                      of producing in Luke's case a two-volume wor on papyrus. Also Luke in Acts
                      provides evidence of numerous churches not founded by any known apostle, but
                      as a result of vigorous natural expansion of the Cbristian faith. They would
                      doubtless have many naive readers as well as sophisticated ones. The whole
                      thrust of Luke-Acts is characterised by the universal character of the
                      Gospel for a whole empire and world, more so than Matthew or Mark, yet that
                      need not rule out a community of faith with a high calling to witness to the
                      world.

                      Regards,

                      petros



                      > It is something I have touched on myself too, especially in relation to
                      > Luke's prologue, which may imply that Luke expected his readers to
                      > engage with his gospel in the light of their reading of the work of his
                      > predecessors. It is one of the directions in which I would like to see
                      > future synoptic study developing. Contemporary interest in narrative-
                      > criticism and intertextuality might be the catalyst for such
                      > developments.
                      >
                      > Mark
                      > --------------------------------------
                      > Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                      > Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                      > University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                      > Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom
                      >
                      > http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                      > The New Testament Gateway
                      > Mark Without Q
                      > Aseneth Home Page
                      >
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.