[Synoptic-L] Lk 24 and Matt 28: micro-level treatment?
- As those of you know who have been following my recent ramblings, I have
written a number of posts in which I attempted to make the case for
dependence of Luke on Matt in Lk 24. I began with what I called macro-level
considerations, and should be continuing now with a series of micro-level
treatments of the text of Luke, with a view to confirming Luke's dependence
on Matt in this chapter. Over the last couple of weeks I have been working on
this project mentally, and have made some extremely interesting discoveries
(as one always does, when one systematically studies the text of Luke with
the assumption that he is using Matt as his gospel source). Nevertheless, I
must face the fact that I would be shortchanging my course preparation and
other obligations if I were to take the time that is required to present all
the evidence in writing at this time. So I have decided to postpone the
project indefinitely. I know that some of you will detect a pattern here:
this would not be the first ambitious project I have announced on this list,
and, like the man who went running out to build the tower, didn't have the
wherewithal to complete it.
However, since I realize that most of you sit spellbound before your computer
terminals, awaiting with bated breath my upcoming posts, I would probably
yield to some pressure (if enough came my way) and produce a brief post
treating the scene of the "women at the tomb" in Luke. Believe me, it is
extraordinarily interesting. One other thing I have been neglecting is a
paper I am scheduled to give to the BTI group here in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, in early February. I hope to write on Lk 9-10, but I haven't
started that yet either!
By the way, speaking of the BTI group, we just had our second paper of the
season, read by Professor Eldon J. Epp. The topic was "Text-critical,
Exegetical, and Socio-Cultural Factors Affecting the Junia/Junias Variation
in Romans 16:7". We were treated to an incredible saga in the field of
text-criticism. What I mean is that the paper was anything but boring, in
spite of the fact that Epp limited his analysis and comments strictly to the
text-critical realm. It is a very long paper, and it should be published soon
in an essay collection (but we were not told which!).
I regret too that my decision to discontinue a discussion of Lk 24 means that
I will not have addressed the issues raised by Ed Tyler regarding the points
of narrative variance between Luke's resurrection story and that of Matt. I
had planned to postpone raising those specific issues again until after
having first attempted to carefully explain Luke's text (I had hoped with
considerable plausibility) as based on, and perhaps also contrapuntally
related to, Matt. My feeling was that if I did this with sufficient cogency,
the problem of incoherency between the two gospel accounts on those
particular points would appear in a different light and would diminish
somewhat in urgency.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...