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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke's editorial task

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Ken, Yes, he does. But on the 3ST there are two important differences which would have influenced Luke s strategy. Firstly Luke took only 17 pericopae from
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I wrote:

      >>But I'm still convinced that on the Farrer Theory Luke would not have
      >>had a strong enough incentive to use Mark at all. He would have
      >>recognized Matthew as a second expanded and superior edition of Mark and
      >>simply ignored the first edition.<<

      Ken Olson replied:

      >Leaving the Farrer Theory aside for the moment, doesn't your 3ST Luke choose
      >to follow Mark instead of Matthew for most of the triple tradition,

      Ken,

      Yes, he does.

      But on the 3ST there are two important differences which would have
      influenced Luke's strategy. Firstly Luke took only 17 pericopae from
      Matthew. In other words it was the least important of his three sources,
      so we can reasonably suppose that as a whole he liked Mark better than
      Matthew. Secondly, Luke the scholar would have thoroughly studied all
      his sources before embarking on his editorial task. He knew that the
      Aramaic TA LOGIA contained sayings of Jesus penned by one of Jesus'
      original disciples (as testified many years later by Papias), so it was
      a relatively reliable and ancient source. However his studies would have
      revealed a considerable overlap between this source and Matthew's Greek
      text. TA LOGIA also overlapped with Mark, but to a much lesser extent
      (around a third as much clear overlap). Thus using Mark as the main
      narrative source would enable Luke to minimize the overlap problems.

      > as well
      >as electing not to use Matthew's order for the double tradition material?

      On the 3ST this material has two distinct origins.
      The 17 pericopae taken from Matthew do on the whole follow Matthew's
      order, as I could show in detail if required.
      Having decided to take the sayings material from its original Aramaic
      source, Luke's order of the sayings would naturally have been *based* on
      that source and not on Matthew. But it turns out that Luke had no great
      respect for the order of the ancient sayings. Matthew was more faithful
      to their original order. Here 2ST advocates have made another error,
      i.e. totally ignoring the possibility that Matthew's neat order could
      have been derived in part from the neat order of the original
      collection.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      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@...
    • Ken Olson
      ... KO: So on your 3ST Luke did not recognize Matthew as a second expanded and *superior* [emphasis mine] edition of Mark, but as a whole he liked Mark
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 30, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wednsday April 30, Ron Price wrote:

        > But on the 3ST there are two important differences which would have
        > influenced Luke's strategy. Firstly Luke took only 17 pericopae from
        > Matthew. In other words it was the least important of his three sources,
        > so we can reasonably suppose that as a whole he liked Mark better than
        > Matthew.

        KO:
        So on your 3ST Luke did not recognize Matthew as a "second expanded and
        *superior* [emphasis mine] edition of Mark," but "as a whole he liked Mark
        better than Matthew."

        RP:
        > Secondly, Luke the scholar would have thoroughly studied all
        > his sources before embarking on his editorial task. He knew that the
        > Aramaic TA LOGIA contained sayings of Jesus penned by one of Jesus'
        > original disciples (as testified many years later by Papias), so it was
        > a relatively reliable and ancient source.

        KO:
        So on your 3ST "Luke the scholar" "thoroughly studied all his sources before
        embarking on his editorial task," and he preferred the source(s) which he
        knew to be more ancient and reliable.

        RP:
        > Having decided to take the sayings material from its original Aramaic
        > source, Luke's order of the sayings would naturally have been *based* on
        > that source and not on Matthew. But it turns out that Luke had no great
        > respect for the order of the ancient sayings. Matthew was more faithful
        > to their original order.

        KO:
        So on your 3ST "Luke had no great respect for the order" of the sayings
        material in his source. The original order of that material is better
        represented in Matthew.

        Hmm...

        Best Wishes,

        Ken

        kaolson@...




        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.