Steven Carr

I was looking at
http://www.geocities.com/christianca...kespecmat.html

This says 'As for the date, L should be dated to before 60 CE, perhaps even earlier than 50 CE because 1) it does not hint to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, 2) it lacks most of the Christological titles more common in later Christian literature,.....'

As the author has defined L to not include anything referred to in Mark (such as the little Apocalypse), is it surprising that his definition excludes any hint to the fall of Jerusalem? (Perhaps Luke 13:1-9 with its theme of 'watchfulness' could be taken as such a hint. It warns that unless they turn from their sins they will die.)

'It lacks most of the Christological titles more common in later Christian literature.....'

Which titles would these be (the author does not say), and do we know that they were not used before 60 AD?

Vinnie

I some comments on some of Layman's arguments for the L source here in another thread.

I simply put L-Materials in a layer underneath Luke as he is using them and I believe I provided reasons that seem to argue against viewing the L material as too early.

I'll try to find the link. If I do I'll post it.

Vinnie

Bernard Muller

Steven wrote:
I think most of L comes from "Luke" herself.
Likely exceptions would be stuff about JB, a grossly exagerated incident when boy Jesus was in the temple, the remark that when Jesus went to Jerusalem for the last time, some were thinking the Kingdom will come very soon.
I showed on my page "parables, part 2" some Lukan parables were conceived for local issues.
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appdx.html

On my other page "the great omission", I postulated the feminist and pro-Roman stuff in GLuke is easy to explain in view of the community's context.
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appf.html

The old argument about no hint of 70CE is easily defused as such: It was already in GMark (and Q), which "Luke" copied. Actually "Luke" added up details about the fall of Jerusalem only appearing in GLuke.
As for the Christological titles, looking at "Acts", "Luke" was not fond of "Son of man" and "Son of God". "Luke" liked to call Jesus as just "Jesus" or "Lord".

Here is from one of my page (HJ-3a):

b) "Son of David": Mk = 3, (Q = 0), Mt = 10, Lk = 4, Jn = 0
c) "Son of Man": Mk = 14, (Q = 8), Mt-Q = 24, Lk-Q = 16, Jn = 12
...
d) "Son of God": Mk = 3, (Q = 2), Mt-Q = 6, Lk-Q = 4, Jn = 10
e) "Lord": Mk = 18, (Q = 7), Mt-Q = 56, Lk-Q = 77, Jn = 43
f) "Christ": Mk = 7, (Q = 0), Mt = 17, Lk = 13, Jn = 21

By definition, L is Lk minus (Mk + Q). So L had also a few "Son of God", "Son of Man", "Christ" & "Son of David".

Best regards, Bernard