Fw: one word supplied by Luke?
- 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 inLk
>2:22-52 actually stems from 1 Sm 12-26, with Lk 2:40 and 2:52 closely"Jesus."
>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)