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

[Synoptic-L] Rejection of Proto-Luke

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    ... Mark, Could you cite the critics for whom the little bits of Mark cropping up in the Central Section played a major role in the rejection of Proto-Luke?
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 23, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      At 9:02 AM on March 22, 2001, Mark Goodacre wrote:

      > While Proto-Luke in the abstract sounded quite plausible and won
      > several adherents at least in the UK, the closer analysis of its
      > contents revealed a fundamental anomaly that undermined its
      > plausibility as an hypothesis. For Streeter and Taylor, it was of
      > key importance that the alleged non-Marcan sections of Luke really
      > were non-Marcan, i.e. were constructed without knowledge of
      > Mark's Gospel. In particular, this was stressed for the Central
      > Section. However, as critics pointed out, there were lots of little
      > bits of Mark cropping up in the Central Section -- and this
      > observation was pretty fatal to Streeter and Taylor's theory.

      Mark,

      Could you cite the critics for whom the "little bits of Mark cropping
      up in the Central Section" played a major role in the rejection of
      Proto-Luke? I would attach great importance to such an argument, but
      Fitzmyer seems to pass over this particular point in his enumeration
      of arguments against Proto-Luke (_Luke_, 89-91).

      Thanks,

      Ken

      Kenneth A. Olson
      Graduate Teaching Assistant
      Department of History
      2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
      University of Maryland
      College Park, MD 20742
      kaolson@...

      I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything - T.H.
      Huxley


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... I m afraid that my comments were impressionistic and from memory. I haven t had a chance to do a proper search but the earliest I can find the general
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 3 2:00 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On 23 Mar 2001, at 9:35, Ken Olson wrote:

        > Could you cite the critics for whom the "little bits of Mark cropping
        > up in the Central Section" played a major role in the rejection of
        > Proto-Luke? I would attach great importance to such an argument, but
        > Fitzmyer seems to pass over this particular point in his enumeration
        > of arguments against Proto-Luke (_Luke_, 89-91).

        I'm afraid that my comments were impressionistic and from
        memory. I haven't had a chance to do a proper search but the
        earliest I can find the general point about Marcan pieces in Proto-
        Luke sections is J.M. Creed's 1930 commentary (especially p.
        lviii), but I see that he focuses primarily on the Passion Narrative.
        Related points are also made across multiple footnotes in Hans
        Conzelmann's _Die Mitte der Zeit_, ET _The Theology of St Luke_.
        However, having looked again at Conzelmann I notice that he too
        does not make the points with special reference to the Central
        Section. Do we have any experts on Proto-Luke out there?

        Mark
        -----------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
        Birmingham B15 2TT
        United Kingdom

        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
        Homepage
        http://NTGateway.com
        The New Testament Gateway

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Emmanuel Fritsch
        # I m afraid that my comments were impressionistic and from # memory. I haven t had a chance to do a proper search but the # earliest I can find the general
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 3 10:39 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          # I'm afraid that my comments were impressionistic and from
          # memory. I haven't had a chance to do a proper search but the
          # earliest I can find the general point about Marcan pieces in Proto-
          # Luke sections is J.M. Creed's 1930 commentary (especially p.
          # lviii), but I see that he focuses primarily on the Passion Narrative.
          # Related points are also made across multiple footnotes in Hans
          # Conzelmann's _Die Mitte der Zeit_, ET _The Theology of St Luke_.
          # However, having looked again at Conzelmann I notice that he too
          # does not make the points with special reference to the Central
          # Section. Do we have any experts on Proto-Luke out there?

          I am not an expert in any biblical study, but I know that
          Boismard wrote two volumes on Proto-Luke : "L'Evangile de
          l'Enfance" and "En quete du Proto-Luc". The first one did
          not deal with central section, and I did not read the second
          one for that time being (but soon).

          Note that Boismard is now common with such reconstruction,
          ("L'Evangile de Marc, sa préhistoire", "Un Evangile Pré-
          Johannique", "La lettre aux Laodiceens"...)

          More information when I have read the central volume on Proto-Luke.

          a+
          manu

          PS : all Boismard works quoted above have been published
          during the 90's, by
          Gabalda (www.gabalda.com).

          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.