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

Re: one word supplied by Luke?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , May 5, 1998
      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 2 of 16 , May 6, 1998
        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 3 of 16 , May 7, 1998
          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 4 of 16 , May 9, 1998
            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 5 of 16 , May 9, 1998
              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 6 of 16 , May 10, 1998
                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 7 of 16 , May 10, 1998
                  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 8 of 16 , May 10, 1998
                    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 9 of 16 , May 10, 1998
                      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 10 of 16 , May 12, 1998
                        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.