Ben C Smith

I recently got hold of Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse (the original version, not the knock-off made by Jerome). In 4.4 he gives the beginnings of all four canonical gospels. Those of Matthew, Mark, and John are exactly what we would expect (Matthew 1.1, Mark 1.1, and John 1.1 respectively), but that given for Luke is not 1.1 but rather 1.5; in other words, he skips the preface.

Any ideas on that, Yuri and Stephen? Surely Victorinus (late century III) did not have a copy of Luke that lacked the preface, did he?

(I shall have a few comments or questions on Lucan priority shortly, Yuri.)

Ben.

Amaleq13

"Seeing that many did take in hand to set in order a narration of the matters that have been fully assured among us" (Lk 1:1, YLT)

If the author of Luke wrote first, what is he talking about here?

Ben C Smith

It looks like Yuri would probably identify those who took in hand to set in order a narration with the authors of L and M on his chart.

On the other hand, now that I think about it, Yuri does not suppose that the preface of Luke was necessarily original to the gospel. So it could mean just about anything a later editor would have in mind, and have nothing to do with the original design or intent of the original author(s).

Ben.

Amaleq13

So, as a later addition, it would come at the "Luke" level on the chart and be a reaction to (against?) "Mk" and "Mt"?

Chris Weimer

If I recall, the hyped theory was that the Caesarean text-type was the manuscripts produced under the authority of Origen or perhaps Eusebius.

What makes you think that the Hebrew is original? I would argue the other way around, that the Lukan features of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew show scribal harmonisation - a very common feature indeed. I haven't indulged myself in the Hebrew text of Matthew, but you have yet to give me a good reason to do so.

JoeWallack

JW:
I'm so glad you decided not to ignore me Yuri. I really didn't want to change my name to Lord Voldermort.



JW:
Okay, you appear to have at least one Conclusion here which already puts you way ahead of most of the Posters here. Add an Introduction, some Key Points and a Summary and this could turn into something dangerous.

The First thing I would like to get clear with you is what is your Primary conclusion here? If it's that in your opinion your post demonstrates that the Synoptic Healing The Sick At Evening story is evidence of Lukan priority than we have something to talk about. On the other hand, if your Primary conclusion here is along the lines of a Conspiracy between Modern Bible Scholarship, the B-Greek List, some individuals at IIDB and Ronnie Earl than we don't.

So please enlighten me. What is your Primary conclusion for this Thread?



Joseph


http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Yuri Kuchinsky

This is very interesting, Ben...

This testimony of Victorinus seems very important. AFAIK this could be the first hard textual evidence for the Lukan prologue having been authored by a later editor.

Well, you never know... Victorinus flourished ca 270 CE, so this is about the same time period to which our earliest manuscripts of Lk belong.

According to the Wikipedia,

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

"The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke are papyrus fragments from the third century, one containing portions of all four gospels (P45) and three others preserving only brief passages (P4, P69, P75)."

So I did a further check, and this is what I found.

P45 -- Lk begins at 6:31
P4 -- Lk begins at 1:58
P69 -- very small fragment; lacks Lk 1
P75 -- Lk begins at 3:18

Thus, what we find here is that the testimony of Victorinus is, in fact, our earliest hard evidence for the beginning of Lk. And it seems like this earliest evidence shows that our current canonical prologue to Lk was not known to Victorinus. Or, if he knew it, he certainly didn't think that it was worth mentioning.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

That's right, Ben.

Yes, the preface of Luke could have been added at any time before or at the "Luke" level. So this preface could have been referring to Mk and/or Mt, at least in part.

I certainly don't deny that there's a considerable amount of later editing in Lk. There's considerable later editing in each of the 4 gospels.

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

But there's very little evidence for this, Chris.

I guess you'd have to read Howard's book to find out...

Such a possibility is examined in my articles that I referenced, but my conclusion was that this is highly unlikely. You can reopen these threads now, and reply to my previous arguments directly right there in these threads.

The only possible reason for you to do so is if you're really interested in the history of Mt. If you're not interested, then nobody can force you to read Howard's book.

A good reason to study the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is that it is clearly a Jewish-Christian text. So it's probable that it preserves some early material.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes.

Yuri.