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

Re: one word supplied by Luke?

Expand Messages
  • Dr. and Mrs. David B. Peabody
    Jack and Brian, First, I agree, in principle, that one can distinguish the customary usage of Luke from the language of Luke s source material and that one can
    Message 1 of 16 , May 2, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Jack and Brian,

      First, I agree, in principle, that one can distinguish the customary usage
      of Luke from the language of Luke's source material and that one can do
      this in a manner which is not source dependent. I have done it for Mark
      and, *mutatis mutandis*, it can be done for Luke. I would acknowledge,
      however, that this has not yet been done in the literature on Luke. Henry
      Cadbury's *Style and Literary Method of Luke* clearly depends upon the
      validity of the Two-Source theory (and some of his conclusions are
      questionable even within that sphere of discourse) and J. G. Franklyn
      Collison's doctoral dissertation, *Linguistic Usages in the Gospel of
      Luke,* presupposes the validity of the Two-Gospel (Neo-Griesbach)
      hypothesis. Collison's method, however, allows one to discount certain
      items in his collection of Lukan usages that would not be valid on the
      Two-Source hypothesis and something similar cannot be said of Cadbury's
      work.

      More specifically, I find Jack's argumentation about "debts/debtors" and
      "sins/sinners" in the Lukan and Matthean versions of the Lord's Prayer to
      be interesting, but at least reversible, if not more probable in the
      reverse.

      Although I have a long history of advocating a source theory that
      challenges the scholarly "consensus" (at least to the extent that this
      consensus is formulated by New Testament scholars generally and not by
      experts in the Synoptic Problem where a consensus is less clear), in this
      case I would appeal to what I judge to be the scholarly consensus, namely
      that Matthew is the most Jewish of the canonical gospels.

      In support of that view, I would note that Matthew can utilize Aramaic or
      Hebrew terms in Greek transliteration without translating them. For
      example, *ta kraspeda* and *ta phylacteria* in Mt 23:5. I have
      taken that to mean that Matthew was comfortable using such language and
      that this author assumed that his readers would understand such terms.

      Luke seems to have been confused by these usages in Mt since he rewrote
      the "parallel" passage in Lk 20:46, substituting "long robes" as a symbol
      of ostentation more familiar to a more Gentile-oriented audience. In the
      process, however, Luke loses the specifically *religious* ostentation
      which the teaching of Jesus in Mt 23:5 emphasizes. This, I would take to
      be good evidence of the secondary character of Lk 20:46 to Mt 23:5.

      The secondary character of Mark is indicated by the fact that, although
      Mark utilizes Aramaic words more often than Luke or Matthew, he always
      translates them, presumably for an audience that knows little, if any,
      Aramaic or Hebrew. See, e. g.,Mk 3:17, 5:41, 7:11, 7:34, 15:22, 15:34.
      Compare the article by Roland Mushat Frye, "The Synoptic Problems and
      Analogies in Other Literatures" in *The Relationships Among the Gospels.
      An Interdisciplinary Dialogue* (ed. William O. Walker, Jr., San Antonio,
      TX:Trinity University Press, 1977) 261-302, esp. his discussion of "The
      Criterion of Language" pp. 264-271.

      With regard to the evidence cited by Jack, I would quote a passage from
      *Beyond the Q Impasse. Luke's Use of Matthew* p. 174. (C. M. Tuckett's
      review of this book for the *JBL* was already noted on this list by Mark
      Goodacre)

      Beginning of quotation------

      Luke also changes Mt's more Jewish and euphemistic "debts" to its more
      generally recognized meaning, "sins" (clearer to Gentiles). Compare Lk
      13:1-5. At Lk 11:4, Luke changes Mt's first use of "debts" to "sins" and
      then adopted Mt's second and parallel usage of "debts." Once Luke had
      explained the metaphor by changing the first metaphorical usage of
      "debts" to its non-metaphorical equivalent, "sins," he could then adopt
      the equivalent metaphorical term, when it appeared at a comparable point
      within a second parallel clause (cf. Mt 6:12 and Lk 11:4). In a similar
      way, within Lk 13:1-6, the term "sinners" appears first in Lk 13:2 and
      then the term "debtors" is used in a subsequent and parallel clause (Lk
      13:4).

      End of Quotation------------------------------

      The similarity in language and literary structure between Luke's edition
      of the Lord's Prayer (which does have a parallel in Mt) and Lk 13:1-5
      (which has no parallel in the synoptics) would support the view that Luke
      is either making use of a source in both contexts which already included
      these distinctive literary features or that Luke has edited Matthew and
      some other source in similar ways in these two contexts or, perhaps, that
      Luke edited Matthew's version of the Lord's Prayer and composed Lk 13:1-5.

      What Jack would explain on the basis of Luke's superior command of Aramaic
      or Hebrew, I would explain on the basis of Luke's use of more Semitic
      source material (Matthew and some other source[s]) and/or on the basis of
      Luke's (or his sources') imitation of the literary style of the LXX. An
      imitator of the LXX may be a gifted reader of Greek, but not know a word
      of Hebrew or Aramaic. Nonetheless, such an imitator would inevitably (and
      inadvertently) include some Semitisms in his or her own Greek compositions.

      In short, I find it difficult to conclude from all of the relevant
      literary evidence (only touched on here) that Luke has a better command of
      Hebrew or Aramaic than does Matthew. Among all of the NT writers only
      Mt gives any evidence of having consulted the Hebrew Bible as opposed to
      the LXX.

      With regard to Luke's command of Hebrew and/or Aramaic, have you ever
      heard a preacher who can't read a word of the Greek elaborate on the
      three Greek words for "love"? I would be the first to acknowledge the
      likelihood that Luke made use of sources whose authors/speakers knew
      Aramaic and/or Hebrew, as these preachers may, but I remain unconvinced
      that the author of the Gospel of Luke knew more about these languages
      than did the author of Matthew.

      David B. Peabody, Chair
      Department of Religion and Philosophy
      Nebraska Wesleyan University
      5000 St. Paul Ave.
      Lincoln, NE 68506
      dbp@...

      On Sat, 2 May 1998, Jack Kilmon wrote:

      > Brian E. Wilson wrote:
      > >
      > > Is it possible to show that any word (sic) in the Gospel of Luke from Lk
      > > 1:5 onwards, was supplied by the evangelist Luke himself, and not taken
      > > from his source material?
      >
      > AMARTIAS in the first half of the "debt/debtors" petition of
      > the Lord's Prayer in Luke is definitely Luke's. The original Aramaic
      > rendering xowbyn for "debt" is an Aramaic idiom for "sin." Matthew
      > lost the meaning of the idiom with his use of a Greek translation
      > using OFEILHMATA/OFEILHTAIS. Luke, on the other hand, apparently
      > more competent in Aramaic than the Matthean scribe saw fit to
      > explain what the idiom meant by using AMARTIAS in the first half and
      > the participial form OFEILONTi in the second half.
      >
      > The same can be said for Luke's use of GAMOUS at 14:8
      > (banquet) against Matthew's use of DEIPNHSAI (wedding). The
      > Aramaic m$twt) had the double meaning but meant banquet
      > in this case. Luke knew that, The Greek speaking Matthew did not.
      >
      > Jack
      >
      > --
      > D�man dith laych idneh d�nishMA nishMA
      > Jack Kilmon (jkilmon@...)
      >
      >
      > http://www.historian.net
      >
    • Jim Deardorff
      ... If Jack is correct on this, we should nevertheless remain open on how to interpret the fact. AMARTIAS may indeed be a word supplied by the writer of Luke
      Message 2 of 16 , May 2, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        At 03:35 AM 5/2/98 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
        >Brian E. Wilson wrote:
        >>
        >> Is it possible to show that any word (sic) in the Gospel of Luke from Lk
        >> 1:5 onwards, was supplied by the evangelist Luke himself, and not taken
        >> from his source material?

        > AMARTIAS in the first half of the "debt/debtors" petition of
        >the Lord's Prayer in Luke is definitely Luke's. The original Aramaic
        >rendering xowbyn for "debt" is an Aramaic idiom for "sin." Matthew
        >lost the meaning of the idiom with his use of a Greek translation
        >using OFEILHMATA/OFEILHTAIS. Luke, on the other hand, apparently
        >more competent in Aramaic than the Matthean scribe saw fit to
        >explain what the idiom meant by using AMARTIAS in the first half and
        >the participial form OFEILONTi in the second half.

        If Jack is correct on this, we should nevertheless remain open on how to
        interpret the fact. AMARTIAS may indeed be a word supplied by the writer of
        Luke here, while at the same time not implying that the Lord's Prayer first
        appeared in Luke. If one keeps the external evidence in mind, the most
        obvious interpretation is that the writer of Luke translated the LP from
        Semitic Matthew, supplying his own Greek words and making his own alterations.

        > The same can be said for Luke's use of GAMOUS at 14:8
        >(banquet) against Matthew's use of DEIPNHSAI (wedding).

        Are you not conflating two items here? Lk 14:8 doesn't have a Matthean
        parallel, does it? It's Lk 14:16-20 that is parallel to the marriage feast
        pericope of Mt 22:2-5, and GAMOUS doesn't appear there, just in Lk 14:8.

        > The
        >Aramaic m$twt) had the double meaning but meant banquet
        >in this case. Luke knew that, The Greek speaking Matthew did not.

        In continuing with the interpretation that accords with the external
        evidence, it seems very possible that the writer of Luke had a more complete
        grasp of Aramaic than did a later translator of Matthew into Greek.

        Getting back to Brian's question, if translation of a source text is
        involved, then the translator (e.g., writer of Luke) was dependent upon his
        source but was independently supplying his own choice of particular (Greek)
        words of his text.

        Jim Deardorff
        Corvallis, Oregon
        E-mail: deardorj@...
        Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
      • Dr. and Mrs. David B. Peabody
        Colleagues, Correction. The example I chose, Mt 23:5, as some of you will no doubt remind me, does not include transliterations of Hebrew terms, but Greek
        Message 3 of 16 , May 2, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Colleagues,

          Correction. The example I chose, Mt 23:5, as some of you will no
          doubt remind me, does not include transliterations of Hebrew terms, but
          Greek equivalents of such terms. This example is rather one of Luke's
          substitution of a term more easily understood by a Gentile audience for
          one in Mt that would be more easily understood by a Jewish audience.

          The appearance of the transliterated, but untranslated "korbanas" in Mt
          27:6 compared to the transliterated and translated "korban" in Mk 7:11
          might have been more apt, but I wanted to draw a comparison between Mt
          and Lk, not Mt and Mk, with such an illustration.

          D. Peabody
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Jack Kilmon wrote (SNIP)- ... Jack, Even if what you say is true, could not Luke still have taken these words from his documentary source material? According
          Message 4 of 16 , May 2, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            Jack Kilmon wrote (SNIP)-
            >
            > AMARTIAS in the first half of the "debt/debtors" petition of
            >the Lord's Prayer in Luke is definitely Luke's. Luke ... saw fit to
            >explain what the idiom meant by using AMARTIAS in the first half and
            >the participial form OFEILONTI in the second half.
            >
            Jack,
            Even if what you say is true, could not Luke still have taken
            these words from his documentary source material? According to the
            Jerusalem School Hypothesis, such Semitisms in Luke actually support the
            idea that this is precisely what he did. On their view, Luke used a
            rather literal written translation into Greek of Jesus tradition which
            had been transmitted orally in Semitic language(s) by the close
            followers of Jesus. So the Semitisms in Luke may well have been copied
            by Luke from his Greek documentary sources, and not supplied by him.

            Is it possible to show that any word (sic) in the Gospel of Luke from Lk
            1:5 onwards, was supplied by the evangelist Luke himself, and not taken
            from his documentary source material?


            I am asking for just one word.


            Best wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
            SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
            10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
            Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
          • Mark Goodacre
            ... I agree, and would want to add that among all the evangelists, Luke is the most versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms (both in Gospel and
            Message 5 of 16 , May 5, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              David Peabody wrote (much omitted):

              >More specifically, I find Jack's argumentation about "debts/debtors"
              >and "sins/sinners" in the Lukan and Matthean versions of the Lord's
              >Prayer to be interesting, but at least reversible, if not more
              >probable in the reverse.

              I agree, and would want to add that among all the evangelists, Luke
              is the most versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms
              (both in Gospel and Acts). This can make the business of attempting
              to distinguish 'source' from 'redaction' in Luke very tricky. It is
              all too easy to jump to source explanations of Lukan material when a
              literary explanation will often suffice.

              David Peabody also wrote (in passing):

              >Although I have a long history of advocating a source theory that
              >challenges the scholarly "consensus" (at least to the extent that
              >this consensus is formulated by New Testament scholars generally and
              >not by experts in the Synoptic Problem where a consensus is less
              >clear) . . .

              I think this an interesting (and perhaps troubling) observation.
              SNTS might provide good evidence for its accuracy. I have only
              been to the conference twice (1996 and 1997) and on each occasion sat
              in on the Synoptic Problem seminar at which a consensus in favour of
              the 2ST was certainly not in evidence -- quite the contrary, in fact.
              Yet I would bet that a poll of most SNTS members (or SBL for that
              matter) would turn up a majority vote for the 2ST. I wonder what the
              explanation is? Are those who are experts on the Synoptic Problem
              seeing things that others are not? Or are they regarded as a lunatic
              fringe better left alone to argue amongst themselves while others get
              on with more important matters?

              With good wishes

              Mark
              -------------------------------------------
              Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
              Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
              Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre.htm
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) - ... By what method do we arrive at the conclusion that Luke is the most versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms in
              Message 6 of 16 , May 6, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) -
                >
                >Among all the evangelists, Luke is the most versatile, the one who
                >constantly varies his synonyms (both in Gospel and Acts).

                By what method do we arrive at the conclusion that Luke is the most
                versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms in both Gospel and
                Acts? It seems to me that to come to this view, we must first be able
                to pick out some words which Luke himself supplied (other than Lk
                1:1-4), and which he did not take from his documentary sources. How else
                would we know that he is versatile in HIS style and that they are HIS
                synonyms?

                Please tell us how we can know that Luke is the most versatile
                evangelist and that he constantly chose to vary his synonyms.

                Best wishes,
                BRIAN WILSON

                E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
              • Mark Goodacre
                ... When we talk about Luke s versatility , we are making an inference about the author from the data in the text. The text (Luke s Gospel) has the largest
                Message 7 of 16 , May 7, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  Brian Wilson asked:

                  > By what method do we arrive at the conclusion that Luke is the most
                  > versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms in both Gospel
                  > and Acts? It seems to me that to come to this view, we must first
                  > be able to pick out some words which Luke himself supplied (other
                  > than Lk 1:1-4), and which he did not take from his documentary
                  > sources. How else would we know that he is versatile in HIS style
                  > and that they are HIS synonyms?
                  >
                  > Please tell us how we can know that Luke is the most versatile
                  > evangelist and that he constantly chose to vary his synonyms.

                  When we talk about 'Luke's versatility', we are making an inference
                  about the author from the data in the text. The text (Luke's Gospel)
                  has the largest vocabulary, the highest number of hapax legomena and
                  the greatest variation in style and language among the evangelists.
                  This is indisputable.

                  Brian's question, however, is how do we know that this data is there
                  because of the literary activity of the author and not because of
                  the sources he happened to be using? Could he have been using widely
                  varying sources, all of which had high numbers of hapax legomena
                  etc.? I would answer this in the following way:

                  1. If talking to a two-source theorist, I would look at the way
                  Luke deals with Mark, introducing more hapax legomena than he takes
                  over, varying his synonyms and so on. We could agree on this.

                  2. If talking to a Griesbachian, I would do the same with Luke's use
                  of Matthew, and then we could agree.

                  3. If talking to an 'Augustinian' we could do the same with Luke's
                  use of Mark and Matthew, and we could agree.

                  4. How would one answer the question for someone like Brian who
                  does not accept any of the above source theories? I suppose one
                  would have to point to the following:

                  (a) the extreme unlikelihood that the large vocabulary, the
                  variation in style etc. could all be due to conservative
                  retention of source material. This would be to return to the
                  kind of scissors and paste theory that has rightly been
                  rejected by contemporary scholarship.

                  (b) Acts, where the same richness, variation etc. is evident.
                  It would be difficult to maintain, I would have thought, that
                  the parallels between Luke's literary style in the Gospel and
                  Acts could be explained on the assumption that Luke was
                  conservatively using very similar sources for each.

                  All the best

                  Mark
                  -------------------------------------------
                  Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                  Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
                  Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre.htm
                • Brian E. Wilson
                  Brian Wilson asked (SNIP) ... Mark Goodacre replied (SNIP) - ... This wasn t my intended question. Mark introduces the assumption that there are just two
                  Message 8 of 16 , May 9, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Brian Wilson asked (SNIP)
                    >By what method do we arrive at the conclusion that Luke is the most
                    >versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms in both Gospel
                    >and Acts?

                    Mark Goodacre replied (SNIP) -
                    >The text (Luke's Gospel) has the largest vocabulary, the highest
                    >number of hapax legomena and the greatest variation in style and
                    >language among the evangelists.
                    >Brian's question, however, is how do we know that this data is there
                    >because of the literary activity of the author and not because of
                    >the sources he happened to be using?

                    This wasn't my intended question. Mark introduces the assumption that
                    there are just two mutually-exclusive explanations of the data - (1)
                    that it is entirely the result of Luke's literary activity, (2) that it
                    is entirely the result of Luke's use of sources. I do not make this
                    assumption. Why should not the data described be the result partly of
                    Luke's literary activity and partly of Luke's use of sources?

                    Putting my question another way to make this explicit -

                    Can we describe a method for distinguishing between words which Luke did
                    supply in his gospel, and which therefore can be used for determining
                    his style(s), from words which Luke did not supply in his gospel, and
                    which therefore indicate the style(s) of his source material?

                    The supplementary question is this. Using such a method, can we pinpoint
                    one word in the gospel of Luke (from Lk 1:5 onwards), and say with
                    confidence that Luke supplied it, and did not take it from his
                    documentary source material?

                    I am asking, still, for just one word to be identified as supplied by
                    Luke himself (other than Lk 1:1-4), and not taken from his documentary
                    source material.

                    For the record, my statement of my hypothesis in the Expository Times in
                    June 1997 explicitly posits that each synoptist EDITED the wording of
                    the material he took from his documentary sources. The fact that Luke
                    has the largest vocabulary, the highest number of hapax legomena and the
                    greatest variation in style and language among the synoptists is
                    perfectly compatible with my hypothesis.

                    Best wishes,
                    BRIAN WILSON

                    E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                    SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                    10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                    Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                  • Jim Deardorff
                    ... Brian, Surely no single word would be regarded as adequate proof of anything, and as you asked above: Can we describe a method for distinguishing between
                    Message 9 of 16 , May 9, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 09:04 AM 5/9/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                      >
                      >Brian Wilson asked (SNIP)
                      >>By what method do we arrive at the conclusion that Luke is the most
                      >>versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms in both Gospel
                      >>and Acts?

                      >Mark Goodacre replied (SNIP) -
                      >>The text (Luke's Gospel) has the largest vocabulary, the highest
                      >>number of hapax legomena and the greatest variation in style and
                      >>language among the evangelists.
                      >>Brian's question, however, is how do we know that this data is there
                      >>because of the literary activity of the author and not because of
                      >>the sources he happened to be using?

                      >This wasn't my intended question. Mark introduces the assumption that
                      >there are just two mutually-exclusive explanations of the data - (1)
                      >that it is entirely the result of Luke's literary activity, (2) that it
                      >is entirely the result of Luke's use of sources. I do not make this
                      >assumption. Why should not the data described be the result partly of
                      >Luke's literary activity and partly of Luke's use of sources?
                      >
                      >Putting my question another way to make this explicit -
                      >
                      >Can we describe a method for distinguishing between words which Luke did
                      >supply in his gospel, and which therefore can be used for determining
                      >his style(s), from words which Luke did not supply in his gospel, and
                      >which therefore indicate the style(s) of his source material?
                      >
                      >The supplementary question is this. Using such a method, can we pinpoint
                      >one word in the gospel of Luke (from Lk 1:5 onwards), and say with
                      >confidence that Luke supplied it, and did not take it from his
                      >documentary source material? [...]

                      Brian,

                      Surely no single word would be regarded as adequate proof of anything, and
                      as you asked above:

                      "Can we describe a method for distinguishing between words which Luke did
                      supply in his gospel..."

                      words (plural) would be needed, probably not just 10 words but 100 or more,
                      before scholars would take notice.

                      Here's an example taken from Goulder's discussion of how the material in Lk
                      2:22-52 actually stems from 1 Sm 12-26, with Lk 2:40 and 2:52 closely
                      paralleling 1 Sm 2:21b and 2:26. Comparing Lk 2:52 with 1 Sm 2:26, we see
                      total Lucan dependence except that "the boy Samuel" is replaced by "Jesus."
                      If one accepts Goulder's analysis, this means that the writer of Luke
                      definitely supplied the word IHSOUS there himself. But since that word
                      occurs all over the other Gospels and Epistles, it can't in any sense be
                      considered distinctive of any one evangelist's vocabulary. Do you see the
                      problem?

                      Jim Deardorff
                      Corvallis, Oregon
                      E-mail: deardorj@...
                      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                    • Richard H. Anderson
                      Jim Deardorff, Brian Wilson, greetings: I would like to propose the following O.T. phrases that among NT writers are unique Lucan terminology: the law of the
                      Message 10 of 16 , May 10, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jim Deardorff, Brian Wilson, greetings:

                        I would like to propose the following O.T. phrases that among NT writers
                        are unique Lucan terminology:
                        'the law of the lord' and 'the law of the fathers'
                        Lk 2:23, 24, 39 and Acts 22:3
                        'the customs which Moses delivered to us' and similar expressions
                        Acts 6:14; 15:1; 21:21; 28:17.
                        'Moses being preached'
                        Acts 15:21
                        'Moses and the prophets'
                        Lk 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44; Acts 26:22; 28:23

                        I guess why question is, why are we focusing on words, why not look at
                        phrases?

                        Richard H. Anderson
                        > At 09:04 AM 5/9/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                        > >
                        > >Brian Wilson asked (SNIP)
                        > >>By what method do we arrive at the conclusion that Luke is the most
                        > >>versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms in both Gospel
                        > >>and Acts?
                        >
                        > >Mark Goodacre replied (SNIP) -
                        > >>The text (Luke's Gospel) has the largest vocabulary, the highest
                        > >>number of hapax legomena and the greatest variation in style and
                        > >>language among the evangelists.
                        > >>Brian's question, however, is how do we know that this data is there
                        > >>because of the literary activity of the author and not because of
                        > >>the sources he happened to be using?
                        >
                        > >This wasn't my intended question. Mark introduces the assumption that
                        > >there are just two mutually-exclusive explanations of the data - (1)
                        > >that it is entirely the result of Luke's literary activity, (2) that it
                        > >is entirely the result of Luke's use of sources. I do not make this
                        > >assumption. Why should not the data described be the result partly of
                        > >Luke's literary activity and partly of Luke's use of sources?
                        > >
                        > >Putting my question another way to make this explicit -
                        > >
                        > >Can we describe a method for distinguishing between words which Luke did
                        > >supply in his gospel, and which therefore can be used for determining
                        > >his style(s), from words which Luke did not supply in his gospel, and
                        > >which therefore indicate the style(s) of his source material?
                        > >
                        > >The supplementary question is this. Using such a method, can we pinpoint
                        > >one word in the gospel of Luke (from Lk 1:5 onwards), and say with
                        > >confidence that Luke supplied it, and did not take it from his
                        > >documentary source material? [...]
                        >
                        > Brian,
                        >
                        > Surely no single word would be regarded as adequate proof of anything, and
                        > as you asked above:
                        >
                        > "Can we describe a method for distinguishing between words which Luke did
                        > supply in his gospel..."
                        >
                        > words (plural) would be needed, probably not just 10 words but 100 or more,
                        > before scholars would take notice.
                        >
                        > Here's an example taken from Goulder's discussion of how the material in Lk
                        > 2:22-52 actually stems from 1 Sm 12-26, with Lk 2:40 and 2:52 closely
                        > paralleling 1 Sm 2:21b and 2:26. Comparing Lk 2:52 with 1 Sm 2:26, we see
                        > total Lucan dependence except that "the boy Samuel" is replaced by "Jesus."
                        > If one accepts Goulder's analysis, this means that the writer of Luke
                        > definitely supplied the word IHSOUS there himself. But since that word
                        > occurs all over the other Gospels and Epistles, it can't in any sense be
                        > considered distinctive of any one evangelist's vocabulary. Do you see the
                        > problem?
                        >
                        > Jim Deardorff
                        > Corvallis, Oregon
                        > E-mail: deardorj@...
                        > Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                      • Brian E. Wilson
                        Jim Deardorff wrote (SNIP)- ... Jim, You seem to be saying that it is impossible to distinguish Luke s vocabulary and style(s) from the vocabulary and
                        Message 11 of 16 , May 10, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jim Deardorff wrote (SNIP)-
                          >Here's an example taken from Goulder's discussion of how the material in Lk
                          >2:22-52 actually stems from 1 Sm 12-26, with Lk 2:40 and 2:52 closely
                          >paralleling 1 Sm 2:21b and 2:26. Comparing Lk 2:52 with 1 Sm 2:26, we see
                          >total Lucan dependence except that "the boy Samuel" is replaced by "Jesus."
                          >If one accepts Goulder's analysis, this means that the writer of Luke
                          >definitely supplied the word IHSOUS there himself. But since that word
                          >occurs all over the other Gospels and Epistles, it can't in any sense be
                          >considered distinctive of any one evangelist's vocabulary. Do you see the
                          >problem?

                          Jim,
                          You seem to be saying that it is impossible to distinguish Luke's
                          vocabulary and style(s) from the vocabulary and style(s) of the
                          writers of his source materials. I do not think Goulder would agree
                          with this.

                          Goulder writes very confidently of Luke's "language" and "style". For
                          instance, writing about Lk 10:30-35, Goulder says that "modern
                          commentaries like Schneider and Fitzmyer...pay no attention to the
                          insistently Lucan style of the story (of the Good Samaritan)...not only
                          is the language substantially Luke's own, the stylistic features
                          (Luke's) ...make up the very stuff of the parable. If we took them away,
                          there would be nothing left." ( "Luke: A New Paradigm", Sheffield 1981,
                          page 491.)

                          Goulder clearly claims to know Luke's language and style. It is not a
                          difficulty for him.

                          The problem is to understand by what method Goulder, or Schneider, or
                          Fitzmyer, or anyone else, distinguishes in Luke's gospel between Luke's
                          language and style, and the language and style of Luke's documentary
                          source material.

                          Or are they just pulling the wool over our eyes?

                          Best wishes,
                          BRIAN WILSON

                          E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                          SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                          10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                          Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                        • Jim Deardorff
                          ... Hello Richard, Yes, expressions are more definitive than isolated words. The expressions in the verses you mentioned above all look like Lucan winners to
                          Message 12 of 16 , May 10, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 09:48 AM 5/10/98 -0400, Richard H. Anderson wrote:
                            >Jim Deardorff, Brian Wilson, greetings:
                            >
                            >I would like to propose the following O.T. phrases that among NT writers
                            >are unique Lucan terminology:
                            >'the law of the lord' and 'the law of the fathers'
                            >Lk 2:23, 24, 39 and Acts 22:3
                            >'the customs which Moses delivered to us' and similar expressions
                            >Acts 6:14; 15:1; 21:21; 28:17.
                            >'Moses being preached'
                            >Acts 15:21
                            >'Moses and the prophets'
                            >Lk 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44; Acts 26:22; 28:23
                            >
                            >I guess why question is, why are we focusing on words, why not look at
                            >phrases?
                            >
                            >Richard H. Anderson

                            Hello Richard,

                            Yes, expressions are more definitive than isolated words. The expressions
                            in the verses you mentioned above all look like Lucan winners to me, and it
                            was good of you to have included the ones in Acts also, since that suggests
                            the writer of Luke was not at all averse to making up speeches for Paul and
                            others to have recited.

                            Unless the expressions occur within material paralleled within Mark and
                            and/or Matthew, however, I guess they don't say much about the Synoptic
                            Problem. Except that I know of no good reason why, if Luke had come before
                            either of the other two Synoptics, they would not have copied much of his
                            "special" material.

                            One can look at triple tradition material containing "Moses," but these are
                            not connected to "law" or "customs" or such, and are subject to the usual
                            easy reversability arguments. E.g., it looks to me like in Mk 12:26 its
                            writer is working from Mt 22:32, and this was one rare instance in which he
                            knew what part of the Scriptures it had come from when it wasn't mentioned
                            in Matthew. So he added in "in the book of Moses at the bush," which the
                            writer of Luke then made use of. Others would argue it differently of course.

                            Jim Deardorff
                            Corvallis, Oregon
                            E-mail: deardorj@...
                            Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                          • Jim Deardorff
                            ... Brian, I was instead pointing out that looking at one individual word can t prove anything. It could be suggestive, though, as in Luke s frequent mention
                            Message 13 of 16 , May 10, 1998
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 06:54 PM 5/10/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                              >Jim Deardorff wrote (SNIP)-
                              >>Here's an example taken from Goulder's discussion of how the material in Lk
                              >>2:22-52 actually stems from 1 Sm 12-26, with Lk 2:40 and 2:52 closely
                              >>paralleling 1 Sm 2:21b and 2:26. Comparing Lk 2:52 with 1 Sm 2:26, we see
                              >>total Lucan dependence except that "the boy Samuel" is replaced by "Jesus."
                              >>If one accepts Goulder's analysis, this means that the writer of Luke
                              >>definitely supplied the word IHSOUS there himself. But since that word
                              >>occurs all over the other Gospels and Epistles, it can't in any sense be
                              >>considered distinctive of any one evangelist's vocabulary. Do you see the
                              >>problem?
                              >
                              >Jim,
                              > You seem to be saying that it is impossible to distinguish Luke's
                              >vocabulary and style(s) from the vocabulary and style(s) of the
                              >writers of his source materials. I do not think Goulder would agree
                              >with this.

                              Brian,

                              I was instead pointing out that looking at one individual word can't prove
                              anything. It could be suggestive, though, as in Luke's frequent mention of
                              Jerusalem.

                              >Goulder writes very confidently of Luke's "language" and "style". For
                              >instance, writing about Lk 10:30-35, Goulder says that "modern
                              >commentaries like Schneider and Fitzmyer...pay no attention to the
                              >insistently Lucan style of the story (of the Good Samaritan)...not only
                              >is the language substantially Luke's own, the stylistic features
                              >(Luke's) ...make up the very stuff of the parable. If we took them away,
                              >there would be nothing left." ( "Luke: A New Paradigm", Sheffield 1981,
                              >page 491.)

                              The Good Samaritan, like other special Lucan material, is quite obviously
                              Lucan, I should think, but I don't see how that has much to do with the
                              Synoptic Problem (except suggesting Luke didn't come first). Look for Lucan
                              expressions within double and triple tradition material; then, if there is
                              some non-reversible argument that tells one about the priority of the
                              verse/pericope, it would be very relevant.


                              >Goulder clearly claims to know Luke's language and style. It is not a
                              >difficulty for him.
                              >
                              >The problem is to understand by what method Goulder, or Schneider, or
                              >Fitzmyer, or anyone else, distinguishes in Luke's gospel between Luke's
                              >language and style, and the language and style of Luke's documentary
                              >source material.
                              >
                              >Or are they just pulling the wool over our eyes?

                              I think that for those who see as clearly as Goulder that Luke came third,
                              as in the Farrer or AH hypotheses, it becomes obvious to you what the Lucan
                              style is.

                              Jim Deardorff
                              Corvallis, Oregon
                              E-mail: deardorj@...
                              Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                            • Brian E. Wilson
                              Richard Anderson notes that the phrase Moses and the prophets is a phrase describing the O.T., and that among NT writers it is unique to the writer Luke,
                              Message 14 of 16 , May 12, 1998
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Richard Anderson notes that the phrase 'Moses and the prophets' is a
                                phrase describing the O.T., and that among NT writers it is unique to
                                the writer Luke, being found in Lk 16:29,31; 24:27,44; Acts 26:22;
                                28:23 only.

                                Hello Richard!

                                Kim Paffenroth, in his book "The Story of Jesus according to L"
                                (Sheffield, 1997), maintains that when writing his gospel, Luke used a
                                documentary source 'L' written about thirty years earlier than the
                                gospel (see page 148 and page 155). The pericope Lk 16:19-31, which
                                includes the phrase "Moses and the prophets" twice, is listed by
                                Paffenroth in his (minimum) reconstruction of the source 'L' (page 145).

                                On this view, phrases like "Moses and the prophets" could have stood in
                                the documentary source material used by Luke.

                                Best wishes,
                                BRIAN WILSON

                                E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                                SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                                10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                                Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.