Vorkosigan

Peter, What's a good discussion of the evolution of Luke? Earl D was talking about that on JM the other day, and i'd like to get a handle on that.

Amaleq13

It certainly didn't happen as described. The requirement the author described is idiotic and clearly fabricated in order to obtain a Bethlehem birthplace.

Peter Kirby

Earl's ideas here seem to be based primarily on Knox's Marcion and the New Testament.

I've been meaning to to read A. Loisy ‘Marcion’s Gospel: A Reply’, HibJ 34 (1936) 378-387, which is a reply to P.-L. Couchoud, ‘Is Marcion’s Gospel one of the Synoptics?’, HibJ 34 [1936] 265-277. Let me know if anyone can obtain a PDF of it.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

I agree. I was going to start a new thread asking for information on this item, but as soon as I found this link this bit of apologia dissolved. (Those who have heard of this Egyptian papyrus will know what I mean.)

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Which Luke-Mark contradictions significant?

S.C.Carlson

Carrier's discussion predated my proposal and for obvious reasons did not consider it. Carrier is correct that understanding PRWTH as "before" (as some have argued) is untenable, but he is far too optimistic to conclude from this debunking that "the basic meaning is clear and unambiguous, so there is no reason even to look for another meaning."

While that may have been true for the reading of the Textus Receptus, which adds a definite article hH before APOGRAFH, the lack of the definite article in the critical text makes the text a lot more difficult to understand.

This can be seen in the textual tradition: one text-type, the Byzantine, added the article to create the interpretation that Carrier finds "clear and unambiguous," while another, Codex Bezae (Western), changed the word order to make my favored interpretation more explicit.

Probably one of the aspects of my proposal that will make it most difficult to accept is that it does not fit nicely into either the apologetical or the skeptical camps. Although it admittedly gives Luke a pass on a commonly discussed historical "error," it does so at the price of making Luke less historically informative and dependent on a part of Josephus's Jewish War that was published in 79.

But making neither side completely happy is perhaps why I like the idea...

Stephen

yalla

Further to "Luke" making changes to "Matthew" if he copied him.Let us not forget that "Luke" makes changes when he copies himself! I refer to the variations in Paul's alleged vision- near- Damascus stories contained in Acts.There "Luke" in the 3 times he has Paul tell the stories has variations each time so that all disagree slightly.Why? Maybe an attempt at verisimilitude? Maybe sloppiness? I don't know.But the point is he tells it differently even when he is his own source.Why then is there such a big fuss being made over the variations from "Matthew" in the infancy/appearances/sermon on the mount-plain etc.?I think the point is established-"Luke" makes changes to his acknowledged sources.Thus similar changes cannot be held to be evidence that he did not change his "Matthew" source.

S.C.Carlson

Yes, it is conceivable, but it is important to remember the argumentative context we're in. The case against Q is that a hypothetical document is not necessary to explain the synoptic relationships, while the case for Q argues that Q is necessary because Matt and Luke are independent of one another.

However, if the position that Matt and Luke are independent requires another hypothetical document (Ur-Markus), then we have to consider whether and under what conditions that Ur-Markus is necessary. If Ur-Markus is only necessary when Matt and Luke are independent, then the defense of Q has just argued itself into a circle.

That's Michael Goulder's approach: he argues that Matt created a lot of material (such as what you've listed) and its presence in Luke is evidence of Luke's dependence on Matt.

Stephen Carlson

S.C.Carlson

In fact, this Minor Agreement between Matt and Luke is one of the reasons why Bart Ehrman has argued that the Western reading here is original.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Aside from the infamous "having compassion"/"being angry" variant, the variants in Mark, expecially among the Caesareans, are best viewed as harmonization to the more popular and less difficult Matthean text. Textual corruption of Mark in the other direction (to both diverge from Matthew and create more difficult readings) is theoretically possible, but, in my view, fairly improbable.

Stephen