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

Fw: one word supplied by Luke?

Expand Messages
  • E. Bruce Brooks
    From: E Bruce Brooks (Warring States Project) In Response to: Brian Wilson re One Word Supplied by Luke Brian begins his note as follows - ... Jim Deardorff
    Message 1 of 1 , May 10, 1998
      From: E Bruce Brooks (Warring States Project)
      In Response to: Brian Wilson re "One Word Supplied by Luke"

      Brian begins his note as follows -

      Jim Deardorff wrote (SNIP)-
      >Here's an example taken from Goulder's discussion of how the material in
      >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
      >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
      And then concludes, apparently in disparagement of Goulder -

      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

      Or are they just pulling the wool over our eyes?

      COMMENT: I have no comment on wool; I never saw a sheep close up in my
      life. But it should be noted that the 1 Samuel > Luke example does not
      raise the question of Luke's literary style. The change from "the boy
      Samuel" to "Jesus" is not reflective of the fact that "Jesus" is a common
      word, even a preferred word, in Luke's vocabulary. It is wholly controlled
      by the need to adapt a Samuel story into a Jesus story. I think this is the
      problem that Jim Deardorff was trying to point out. Perhaps someone can
      supply, for discussion, a better test case of Goulder's definition of Lukan
      style, as distinct from his authorial strategy.

      Style does not consist in an author's reflecting the standard materials of
      the language (in this case, evangelical Greek at large). It consists in a
      distinctive choice from, emphasis within, way of handling, rhetorical
      proclivities among, those materials, at points where such choices are
      available to an author in the first place. The present case is wholly
      constrained by the need of adaptation. There is no option to leave "Samuel"
      in place, or substitute "Moses."

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst (USA)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.