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

Re: one word supplied by Luke?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.