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

Re: one word supplied by Luke?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.