Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 11-10-2008, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Justin Martyr claimed the "memoirs of the apostles" which contained passages similar to the gospels were read in the churches in the cities and in the country on Sundays. "The memoirs" were very popular, however there was no mention of any gospel called Luke by Martyr, yet he mentioned that some John wrote a "revelation".

The names of things can change. "Memoirs" could turn into "Luke", for example - i.e. he might be talking about the same thing.

But actually if he is talking about something with a different name, by "memoirs", it's more likely he'd talking about what became "Matthew".

neilgodfrey · 11-10-2008, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Tertullian claimed Marcion mutilated Luke, yet quote passages that are found in Matthew.

Many serious questions you raise, aa. To shift to a tangent, I wonder if your comment above should be seen as supporting evidence that the gospels did not have authors assigned from their inception.

Neil Godfrey

Ben C Smith · 11-10-2008, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

But my original argumentation was that there was no proto-Luke because there would be something surviving if it was as widespread that both Marcion and Luke would use it.

I am repeating myself here in saying that this presumption is just that, a presumption. Too many widespread and popular texts from antiquity are lost to suppose that one particular text should have survived had it been widespread and popular.

Quote:

Tertullian has a lot of hearsay.

I agree; he does. But in this case he appears to be reading the Antitheses directly, using their contents to disagree with Marcionites of his own day.

Quote:

Even disregarding that, the evidence doesn't really support a proto-Luke, as the first 2 chapters of Luke have a similar style as the rest of the Gospel. For example, "eis erimon topon" in 1:35 and 6:32.

Neither Luke 1.35 nor Luke 6.32 has this phrase. However, both Mark 1.35 and Mark 6.32 have it. But Luke 4.44 has it, too. So does Matthew 14.13.

Does this evidence, on your reckoning, support the notion that the same author is responsible for all of these texts?

Quote:

The fact that both groups would use this same gospel, proto-Luke, means it would have been widespread.

Just for the sake of clarity, my hypothesis (which, as I have mentioned, I am only playing with as a matter of probability and possibility right now) does not entail two different groups using this gospel; it entails two different individuals (Luke and Marcion) using it.

Quote:

The fact that there is nothing to support it except references by Tertullian, makes it very unlikely it wasn't just Luke Marcion was editing, which Tertullian claims anyway. An abridged version of Luke may very well have been just that, by previous Gnostics. (by the way, where does Tertullian say this specifically?)

Against Marcion 4.4.4. I have the passage available on my Marcion page.

Quote:

Amongst Christians, as there were significantly more in the 2nd century.

The connection here is too tenuous so far for me to follow.

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 11-10-2008, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

These arguments are really quite incontrovertible, an open-and-shut case IMO.

Hi Yuri--these look very interesting, and I will be reading through them, though my initial reaction is that there is another explanation. I can believe that a proto-Lk predated Mt. However, I explain the other problems (the Great Omission for example) by assuming a proto-Mk as well, shorter than the version we have.

Hi, cave,

I suspect that the proto-Mk that you're talking about, and the proto-Lk that I'm talking about are pretty well the same thing... Let's just call it the earliest proto-gospel.

I don't think proto-Lk had any nativity/youth stories, so in this respect it was more like a proto-Mk. And the proto-Mk certainly didn't have the Bethsaida section (aka the Great Omission in Lk), so in this respect it was more like a proto-Lk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

This is not to say that canonical Mk is necessarily the very same Mk that Matthew used;

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

as spin has noted, the versions we have were constantly being reworked over time.

That's for sure!

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

But Matthew used a Mk that was closer to the one we have, whereas proto-Lk would have used a Mk that was shorter than the one we have.

As for Lukan material, maybe he did make much of it up. Or maybe they were stories he heard. Or maybe he got them from other sources. I imagine it was some of each.

Makes sense to me...

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

I don't think we need a Lukan Priority hypothesis to explain the L material.

Of course not!

The reason I focus on the L material in this article of mine,

http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/bbl/earluke.htm

is because its primary focus is on the Goulder/Goodacre claims that Lk mostly derives from Mt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

It's much harder to explain why Mark would have edited out all the Q material, for example.

Well, I don't think Mk had much Q material to deal with, in any case. I'm quite sure that “Q material” is mostly late stuff (that's why it's so generally uniform).

Yuri.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
My biblical webpage is online again,
http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

Ben C Smith · 11-10-2008, 10:12 AM

I have never understood the Bethsaida section (the great omission) as a selling point for an early Luke (or proto-Luke). Authors are allowed to omit material. What if the Bethsaida section was simply omitted?

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 11-10-2008, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

But my original argumentation was that there was no proto-Luke because there would be something surviving if it was as widespread that both Marcion and Luke would use it.

I am repeating myself here in saying that this presumption is just that, a presumption. Too many widespread and popular texts from antiquity are lost to suppose that one particular text should have survived had it been widespread and popular.

Hi, Ben,

One just wonders where our whole NT textual criticism would have been today if the hairy old Sinaiticus was used for fuel during some cold winter in centuries past... Perhaps everyone would have still been using the KJV?

The Classics section of any bookstore is full of great works of ancient past that barely survived as one lonely MS. Justin's Apology was one such book.

But of course most of the proto-Lk does survive today under various guises. It's incorporated in all sorts of texts.

All the best,

Yuri.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
My biblical webpage is online again,
http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

Toto · 11-10-2008, 10:35 AM

Vernon Robbins thinks that the Great Omission can be explained by aLuke's decision to place Jesus' ministry in Galilee and Paul's ministry around the Mediterranean. Whether or not you accept the main part of this early paper of his, I think that point is worth considering.

By Land and By Sea

Quote:

Perhaps the most important piece of information which indicates that the author is composing toward a dramatic finish that is achieved through sea voyages is "the great omission" in Luke.⁶⁹ Luke shows dependence upon Mark as a source for most of the material in Mark 1-6:44. But beginning with Mark 6:45, and continuing through Mark 8:26, Markan material is not recounted in Luke. The proposal in this paper is that the manuscript of Mark that the author of Luke-Acts used contained Mark 6:45-8:26. He omitted this section of Mark because it took the ministry of Jesus too far into the type of mission that he wanted to portray for Paul.

As Luke used the material in Mark 1-6:44, he systematically omitted references to the sea.⁷⁰ As we have just previously noticed, Luke places the call of the disciples (Mark 1:16-20), the stilling of the storm (Mark 4:35-41), and the healing of the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:1-20) on "the lake." In this way he avoids reference to the sea. But when he gets to Mark 6:45, the mission of Jesus develops into a mission all around the Sea of Galilee and deep into Gentile territory. Precisely with the episode where Jesus walks on the sea (Mark 6:45-52), the author begins to omit all of the material. After this episode, Jesus and his disciples cross the sea again (Mark 6:53-56), a rationale for Gentile mission is established (Mark 7:1-23), then Jesus travels through Tyre and Sidon (7:24-37). Since the boat and the sea continue to play an important role through 8:21, the author of Luke omits all the episodes in the section from the walking on the sea (Mark 6:45-52) until the confession of Peter in 8:27-33. By omitting this material, the author narrates an uninterrupted ministry of Jesus in Galilee without excursions into Tyre and Sidon and other Gentile territory. Also, the author keeps Jesus out of a boat and off a body of water that may begin to play a major role in his ministry.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 11-10-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I have never understood the Bethsaida section (the great omission) as a selling point for an early Luke (or proto-Luke). Authors are allowed to omit material. What if the Bethsaida section was simply omitted?

Ben.

Of course the authors are allowed to omit material, Ben. But you're forgetting what sort of material we're talking about... I think “secondary” is written all over this Bethsaida section material. It's duplicating the Feeding of the Multitudes, and it's all about the Gentiles, and their role in the Kingdom.

Best,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith · 11-10-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Of course the authors are allowed to omit material, Ben. But you're forgetting what sort of material we're talking about... I think “secondary” is written all over this Bethsaida section material. It's duplicating the Feeding of the Multitudes, and it's all about the Gentiles, and their role in the Kingdom.

Duplication and gentile emphasis strike me as good reasons for canonical Luke to have omitted this section, secondary or not. Eliminating duplication is understandable for almost any author, and Luke has an entire second volume to work with when it comes to the gentiles.

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 11-10-2008, 10:55 AM

If the Second Feeding of the Multitudes was really an integral part of the original narrative of Jesus' ministry, I would say that aLuke would have been an extremely arrogant and capricious editor to completely omit it.

Yuri.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-10-2008, 10:12 AM	#115
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	I have never understood the Bethsaida section (the great omission) as a selling point for an early Luke (or proto-Luke). Authors are allowed to omit material. What if the Bethsaida section was simply omitted? Ben.

11-10-2008, 10:55 AM	#120
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	If the Second Feeding of the Multitudes was really an integral part of the original narrative of Jesus' ministry, I would say that aLuke would have been an extremely arrogant and capricious editor to completely omit it. Yuri.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.