JoeWallack

JW:
Great, now I can say "here's something else for you to ignore" and not be sarcastic. My effort here hasn't been primarily to demonstrate Yuri's bias in promoting Lukan priority but to indicate the problems with trying to take the Healing At Evening Story as good evidence for Lukan priority. Markan priority is a huge problem for modern Christian Bible scholarship. One it acknowledges but hasn't come to grips yet with what it means. Pretty much unanimous Patristic "Church Tradition" that "Matthew" was first demonstrates that "Church Tradition" is a relatively poor category of evidence.

Here are the problems Yuri has here (whether he Ignores them or not):

1) The agreement between "Luke" and "Matthew" is negative agreement which has significantly less weight than positive agreement.

2) The positive agreement is between "Mark" and "Luke" which doesn't hurt Markan priority and has significantly less weight than agreement between "Luke" and "Matthew".

3) There is individual and phrase word agreement here between "Mark" and "Matthew".

4) The agreement here between "Mark" and "Luke" involves casting out demons and ordering them not to reveal Jesus' secret identity. This is a primary theme of "Mark" so he is the one more likely to have originally written it.

5) The transition from the Healing At Evening story has "Matthew" agree with "Mark" as to location:

Mark 1: (ASV)
39 "And he went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out demons."

Matthew 4: (ASV)
23 "And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people.

Luke 4: (ASV)
44 And he was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee."

The textual evidence indicates that "Luke" originally wrote "Judea" instead of "Galilee".

6) Copyists changed "Luke" above to make it agree with "Matthew".

7) Now we have the Editorial fatigue Mr. Carlson was talking about. "Luke" copied the casting for demons at Home but dropped it on the Road.


And best of all, now that Yuri has decided to Ignore me, I can say that he sounds exactly like a Liar For Jesus and I don't have to worry about him reporting me to the Moderators.



Joseph

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ternetinfidels

Ben C Smith

The version I have is the SC one. So I get to stare at yet more French on every other page. Lucky me.

That was my instinct, and I would like to make good on it if possible, but consider that there was likewise no way to turn Mark 1.1 into a rationale for assigning Mark the image of an eagle, yet Victorinus quotes Mark 1.1 anyway, and then just skips ahead nine verses or so in his explanation. Why did he not quote Luke 1.1 (at least), then just skip ahead to Zacharias in his explanation?

He also seems to conflate Matthew 1.1 with Luke 3.38 in inserting son of God into the former in conjunction with the genealogy.

Good to know. I was wondering if Irenaeus knew the Lucan prologue. I remember now that Origen knew it. Homilies on Luke, prologue:

Ταχα δε και το επεχειÏ?ησαν λεληθυιαν εχει κατηγοÏ?ιαν των χωÏ?ις χαÏ?ισματος ελθοντων επι την αναγÏ?αφην των ευαγγελιων.

Hoc quod ait: Conati sunt, latentem habet accusationem eorum, qui absque gratia spiritus sancti ad scribenda evangelia prosiluerunt.

That which he says about having taken in hand holds out an accusation against those who hurried to write gospels without the gifting of the holy spirit.

Some also think that Papias (or his elder) knew it, what with the talk of writing in order and all.

Ben.