Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke's editorial task
- On Wednsday April 30, Ron Price wrote:
> But on the 3ST there are two important differences which would haveKO:
> 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
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."
> Secondly, Luke the scholar would have thoroughly studied allKO:
> 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.
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.
> Having decided to take the sayings material from its original AramaicKO:
> 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.
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.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...