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

tc-list Questions on Luke

Expand Messages
  • Ken Litwak
    I ve been looking recently at Luke s Gospel and noticed something that seems to me distinctive. I m aware of big blocks of text that are questionable, like
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 28, 1997
      I've been looking recently at Luke's Gospel and noticed something
      that seems to me distinctive. I'm aware of big blocks of text that are
      questionable, like Mark 16:9-20, and of course I know abut the many
      small variations in D in Acts. WHile it may not be completely unique,
      it seems to me that there are not many other NT books that seem to have
      so many whole verses added or omitted in the MS tradition, and in such
      an uneven way. I'm trying to figure out what happened here. For
      example, Luke 22:17-20 seems to have pretty good Alexandrian evidence
      for its inclusion (I think UBS3 should give it at least a B rather than
      a C). Then again, 22:43-44 have good support from other traditions but
      not good evidence from the Alexandrian tradition. 22:62 seems to have
      very solid evidence for it in the Alexandrian tradition, and I'm almost
      certain that it should be regarded as original. 23:16 seems more
      ambivalent in its evidence. Then 24:12 has good Alexandrian support.

      I guess I'm looking for some way to understand the inclusion or
      omission of so many whole verses over several chapters, as opposed to
      big blocks (like Rom 16), and trying to figure out what text form p75
      therefore seems to reflect. It frequently doesn't seem to reflect an
      Alexandrian text to me. Is anyone aware of detailed studies on this
      issue in Luke or have any thoughts on it? The above is not meant as a
      detailed analysis but just an impression from reading through that
      portion of Luke recently. Thanks.


      Ken Litwak
      Univ. of Bristol
      Living in Richmond, CA
    • Robert B. Waltz
      On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Tue, 28 Oct 1997 wrote ... If you check UBS4, you ll note that this has been demoted to a B decision. In one sense I m not sure I agree;
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 28, 1997
        On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Tue, 28 Oct 1997 wrote"

        >I've been looking recently at Luke's Gospel and noticed something
        >that seems to me distinctive. I'm aware of big blocks of text that are
        >questionable, like Mark 16:9-20, and of course I know abut the many
        >small variations in D in Acts. WHile it may not be completely unique,
        >it seems to me that there are not many other NT books that seem to have
        >so many whole verses added or omitted in the MS tradition, and in such
        >an uneven way. I'm trying to figure out what happened here. For
        >example, Luke 22:17-20 seems to have pretty good Alexandrian evidence
        >for its inclusion (I think UBS3 should give it at least a B rather than
        >a C).

        If you check UBS4, you'll note that this has been demoted to a B
        decision.

        In one sense I'm not sure I agree; it's a case of the "Western" text
        versus the others, and the "Western" text has a right to be heard
        (even if not strongly respected :-).

        On the other hand, the fact that the "Western" text is so fractured
        is good evidence that the longer reading is original.

        [ ... ]

        >Then 24:12 has good Alexandrian support.
        >
        > I guess I'm looking for some way to understand the inclusion or
        >omission of so many whole verses over several chapters,

        I don't think I can agree with this. There are plenty of additions/
        omissions in the other synoptic gospels, too (Matt. 16:2f., 27:35,
        27:49 spring to mind; similarly Mark 9:44, 46). If Luke has more
        such variants, I think it is because of the "Western" readings.

        Although it's also worth noting that Luke was the gospel Marcion
        used....

        >as opposed to
        >big blocks (like Rom 16), and trying to figure out what text form p75
        >therefore seems to reflect. It frequently doesn't seem to reflect an
        >Alexandrian text to me.

        This, actually, comes back to a point I raised some time ago.

        There is absolutely no doubt that P75 and B go together. Take that
        as given.

        The question is, *do they go with Aleph and the rest of the Alexandrian
        witnesses?*

        I know that B has always been held up as the core witness of the Alexandrian
        text. But -- since we don't have an agreed-upon definition of a text-type --
        we cannot take that as certain.

        Just something to think about, folks. I'm not taking a side here. :-)

        >Is anyone aware of detailed studies on this
        >issue in Luke or have any thoughts on it? The above is not meant as a
        >detailed analysis but just an impression from reading through that
        >portion of Luke recently. Thanks.

        I think the place to start is the studies on Codex Bezae. Since we have
        several experts on that (Holmes, Parker), I will defer to them....


        -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

        Robert B. Waltz
        waltzmn@...

        Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
        Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
        (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
      • WFWarren@aol.com
        ... The work by Carlo Martini would be among the best on P75 in Luke: Carlo Martini, Il Problema della Recensionalita del Codice B alla Luce del Papiro Bodmer
        Message 3 of 3 , Oct 29, 1997
          In a message dated 28-10-97 8:47:45 PM, Ken Litwak wrote:

          > Is anyone aware of detailed studies on this
          >issue in Luke or have any thoughts on it? The above is not meant as a
          >detailed analysis but just an impression from reading through that
          >portion of Luke recently. Thanks.


          The work by Carlo Martini would be among the best on P75 in Luke:
          Carlo Martini, Il Problema della Recensionalita del Codice B alla Luce del
          Papiro Bodmer XIV. (in Analecta Biblica, vol. 26, Rome, Pontificio Instituto
          Biblico, 1966).

          You may also want to look at the following:

          J. Neville Birdsall's article in Studies in the New Testament Language and
          Text, edited by Keith Elliott, vol. 44 of Supplements to Novum Testamentum,
          Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1976.

          J. Duplacy, P75 (Pap. Bodmer XIV-XV) et les formes les plus anciennes du
          texte de Luc, in L'Evangile de Luc: Probleme litteraires et theologiques,
          Belgium, J. Duculot, 1973.

          Sarah A. Edwards, P75 under the Magnifying Glass, in Novum Testamentum, 18
          (July 1976): 190-212.

          I could list some others, but these should get you started towards
          understanding P75 better. Having collated P75 in Luke some time ago, I can
          vouch that it is extremely close to B (as well as to P4 where those two
          overlap, but allowance should be made for limited text overlap).

          I hope this helps.

          Paz,

          Bill Warren
          Professor of New Testament and Greek
          New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.