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

[Synoptic-L] Lk21:20-28, on Jerusalem (Was: Luke's editorial procedure)

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    I read with interest the discussion between Ken Olson and Ron Price about Luke omission, and I would like to ask them about a strange characteristic of Lukan
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I read with interest the discussion between Ken Olson and Ron Price
      about Luke omission, and I would like to ask them about a strange
      characteristic of Lukan discource about Jerusalem's desolation.


      Imagine that Farrer-Goulder is true. In this case, canceling
      Markan or Matthean wordings in Luke should lead to a fake :
      according Farrer-Goulder, in the eschatological discourse,
      Luke is just enhancing his sources. There is absolutely no
      reason for him to design his own addition so that his own
      work would present a better internal coherency when Mark
      (or Matthew) is cancelled.

      What we say here remains true with 2DH : If Luke's Sondergut
      in eschatological discourse is the union of :
      - Q omitted by Matthew, and
      - new redaction of Luke,
      then there is no reason to find improvement of coherency when
      cancelling Mark or Matthew.

      Now, what do we find if we want to lead this operation ?

      I will take the example on the prophecy about
      Jerusalem (Lk 21:20-28 // Mk 13:14sq) :


      (20) But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then
      recognize that her desolation is near.
      (21) Then
      (b) those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains,
      (c) and those who are in the midst of the city must leave,
      and those who are in the country must not enter the city;
      (22) because these are days of vengeance, so that all things
      which are written will be fulfilled.
      (23) Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are
      nursing babies in those days;
      (b) for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;
      (24) and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive
      into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the
      Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
      (25) There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay
      among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves,
      (26) men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are
      coming upon the world;
      (b) for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
      (27) Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power
      and great glory.
      (28) But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift
      up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.

      The close wording verses in Mark are :
      * Lk 21:21b = Mk 13:14b
      then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains
      (tote oi en th ioudaia feugetwsan eiV ta orh)

      * Lk 21:23b = Mk 13:17
      Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days
      (tote oi en th ioudaia feugetwsan eiV ta orh)

      * Lk 21:26b ~ Mk 13:25b
      for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
      (ai gar dunameiV twn ouranwn saleuqhsontai)

      * Lk 21:27 ~ Mk 13:26
      Then they will see the son of man coming in a cloud with power
      and great glory. (kai tote oyontai ton uion tou anqrwpou ercomenon
      en nefelh meta dunamewV kai doxhV pollhV)

      All other connection between Luke and Mark are related to isolated
      words (desolation, Jerusalem, etc.), needed by the context. Sun,
      moon and stars may be described as a summary of Mark in Luke, but
      it is not necessary, since it belongs to a common topos in
      eschatology. Whatever it is, it does not affect the following
      conclusions.

      Does our operation make a good text ? Yes.
      In fact, it provides even a better text !

      * The english traduction of Lk 21:21 gives us : "those who are in
      the midst of the city must leave ". But where is the word 'city' in
      the greek text ? There is not. In fact, we have the pronoun " authV",
      which refers not to Judea, in the same verse, but to Jerusalem, in
      the previous one. "Judea" looks as a bad insertion.

      * There is a contradiction between vv. 27 and 28. In v. 27, the
      son of man is arrived. In v. 28, it looks as if he is still awaited.

      For both these reasons, it looks doubtfull that Luke composed his
      own version on selected verses of Mark. In fact, he should have
      inserted some impressive verses of Mark in a well composed text,
      that we can reconstruct in first approximation as :

      (20) But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies,
      then recognize that her desolation is near.
      (21a) Then
      (c) those who are in the midst of the city must leave,
      and those who are in the country must not enter the city;
      (22) because these are days of vengeance, so that all things
      which are written will be fulfilled.
      (23b) for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;
      (24) and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive
      into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the
      Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
      (25) There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay
      among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves,
      (26a) men fainting from fear and the expectation of the
      things which are coming upon the world;
      (28) But when these things begin to take place, straighten up
      and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.

      Once again, it woold be really improbable that Luke designed this
      block just from Mark, hidding such a well composed feature in his
      text. If Luke minus Mark is well composed, we may say it is the
      track of a proto-Lukan source, until another best explanation
      would be given.

      Since you wrote :
      KO :
      >we need not hypothesize a lost document just to save him [Luke] some labor.
      RP :
      > Is anyone suggesting this? Certainly I'm not.

      being agree to dismiss Streeter's proto Luke, I would like to know
      how you explain the phenomenon presented in this mail. Anyone who
      distrusts the existence of proto-Luke is welcome to answer this question.

      A+
      manu

      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.