Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:
>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 in a given pericope Luke was using Mark, then if we subtract the
Markan content what remains is Luke's additions. I agree in general that
we would not expect this remainder to be a coherent text unless the
remainder was dependent on another source.
>I will take the example on the prophecy about
>Jerusalem (Lk 21:20-28 // Mk 13:14sq) :
>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.
Or else the addition of verses 20 and 21b-22 was a little clumsy.
>* 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.
Here again, Luke's adaptation of Mark looks a little clumsy. Luke
seems to have confused the signs of an imminent end with Mark's
statement about what will happen at the end (i.e. the Son of man will
come in a cloud).
>For both these reasons, it looks doubtfull that Luke composed his
>own version on selected verses of Mark.
Or alternatively Luke was not a particularly skilful editor. (Compare
Mark Goodacre's comments on Luke's adaptation of Matthew's 'Talents'
> ..... If Luke minus Mark is well composed, we may say it is the
>track of a proto-Lukan source .....
It isn't well composed .....
> ..... 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
But it would be a strange coincidence if sun, moon and stars had been
mentioned at just this point in the supposed proto-Luke source. When one
(or even two!) of Luke's known sources mention the sun, moon and stars
in the right place(s), it is hardly justifiable to attribute their
presence in Luke to a source whose existence is highly dubious.
>Whatever it is, it does not affect [my]
On the contrary it ruins your conclusions, for it is a summary of Mk
13:24-25, and so according to your procedure it should be subtracted
along with the other verses derived from Mark. This leaves the text:
"... until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled and on earth distress
among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves" which
doesn't make sense at all ("on earth" is superfluous here, and there is
no verb associated with "distress").
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...