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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Lk 1.46-55

Expand Messages
  • Matson, Mark A. (Academic)
    Emmanuel: As a proponent of Johannine material in Luke, I will respond to the latter part of your message. I am not sure how to assess your comment on the
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 17, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Emmanuel:

      As a proponent of Johannine material in Luke, I will respond to the latter
      part of your message. I am not sure how to assess your comment on the
      Magnificat, since that seems to have no Johannine connection (no birth
      narrative at all! No Mary either, come to think of it -- only the "mother
      of Jesus").

      The argument for Johannine influence on Luke (not the other way around), is
      based on the way synoptic material is modified, incorporating material
      strikingly similar to John. In many cases issues of order similar to John,
      or common material, or similar theology are evident. It is intriquing that
      Luke often inserts such "johannine" material into generally synoptic
      accounts, especially in the passion, and that the more such material there
      is, the greater the variation from the Markan/Matthean version of the
      specific pericope. (though to a certain extent this is obvious, isn't it?
      the more "non-markan" material there is, the less markan it seems!) Still,
      it appears to me that Luke is "pulled" in the direction of John at times --
      hence the title of my dissertation "In Dialogue with Another Gospel." But
      he is not entirely convinced of John's account, and remains more committed
      to the Markan account fundamentally. (I would say the same thing for his
      use of Matthew!)

      But the issue is not based on Hebraisms or other narrow linguistic
      arguments. Luke appears to have been a fairly skilled composer, able to use
      materials from various sources and wed them into his final writing. At
      times there are slight betrayals of style that seems "unLukan" -- and that
      has been the burden of Tim Schramm ("Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas) and Joachim
      Jeremias ("Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums"). These are interesting, and
      at times support an analysis of Luke's editorial posture -- but I don't
      think they are ever compelling in and of themselves.

      The more I read Luke, I sense he was a very creative composer. And it is
      hard to pin down any "absolute" indications of his influences. We can get
      broad hints, and see his general tendencies. But to much emphasis on words
      and phrases is futile.

      Mark Matson
      Milligan College

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Emmanuel.Fritsch@... [mailto:Emmanuel.Fritsch@...]
      > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:10 PM
      > To: Synoptic-L@...
      > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Lk 1.46-55
      >
      >
      >
      > Sorry to come back to a dead thread :
      >
      > I would like to say that according some authors, childhood gospel
      > according Luke is based on a Johanin document. Boismard, for
      > instance, defends the idea that magnificat was primarily the
      > song of Elizabeth.
      >
      > Whatever you think about that second assertion, it seems
      > difficult to consider hebraism in Magnificat as a common
      > example for the whole gospel.
      >
      > Are there other Hebraism in main Luke quotations of LXX ?
      > For scholars that defend Johanine material in gospels, do
      > they relate them to Hebraism ?
      >
      > a+
      > manu
      >
      > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      >

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.