outhouse

I think at best you are providing evidence that the inner circle never had a hand in any writings what so ever, and the Peter from Jerusalem may just be another Hellenist who had the name Peter but upheld Jewish law's more so then Paul.

Adam

My further research on Marcan primacy and other gospel source studies has included going through reviews published in the last year ended July 2013. No ground-breaking studies have come out, or any presuming to be were rightly shot down by reviewers. Peer review apparently means very little before getting a book published, just that some other scholar has similar views. (Naturally this would make impossible for anything really new to come forth.) Unfortunately, many simplistic and wrong views pass by this marker. No concern is given to someone presents Q as just the overlap of only Matthew and Luke and that something outside this definition could have been used in only one gospel, particularly if this one gospel is Mark. This convention basically goes back to B. H. Streeter in The Four Gospels (1924) and his apparent concession that nothing else could be proved to be part of it. (Ironically, this same scholar had been among the most noteworthy in attempting to delineate Q outside this narrow purview.) He wrote the most notable chapters in W. Sanday’s Oxford Studies in the Synoptic problem, 1911. Among his “St. Mark’s Knowledge and Use of Q” he wrote that the first 13 verses of Mark are a summary of Q and that the Beelzebub (Mk. 3:22-30) controversy is straight out of Q. Yet even within our more limited convention the scholars can get it wrong (and reviewers not notice as when Marcus Bockmuehl stated there was nothing about Peter in Q (disregarding Luke 12:41—but then that’s Q2.) in his Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory, 2012. He focused on memories about Peter (in addition to Mark) in Matthew and John and in the West.

John Horman made an interesting attempt towards A Common Written Greek Source for Mark and Thomas, 2011. Simon Gathercole gave a savage review that it is basically assertion in a vicious circle, like so much else in this field. Horman set up four basic possibilities before settling on one, but seems to have ignored the most likely source as an early Aramaic version of Q. Almost all of the Gospel of Thomas we know is in Coptic, so one would think he would have focused on the Greek fragments we do have from Oxyrynchus. Apparently imaginative speculation on the Coptic avoided disproving his thesis.

That so little has been accomplished I attribute to almost a century of following the false lead of Form Criticism. Neither its assumptions nor results are honored today, but no one dares dispensing with it all together. As far as anyone will go is to find (like Richard Bauckham) that eyewitnesses were consulted for the gospels, but not that any of these wrote them (like Streeter contended in 1911 about Matthew writing Q (pg. 216 in Oxford Studies). At least we have gotten post Vincent Taylor’s objection to Form Criticism that everyone who knew Jesus is assumed to have arisen with him into heaven.
I have presented strong arguments for some of my eyewitness writers (such as for the Discourses and the Passion Narrative), but one of the weakest of my seven is that Simon wrote Proto-Luke. It turns out there is much scholarly support (at least indirect) for this. Jay Harrington has such a large preview from his thousand pages studying the Lukan Passion Narrative
that the initial survey is almost all included. From B. S. Easton on page 47, “L was composed by a strict Jewish-Christian and written for the benefit of other Jewish-Christians and in order to convert Jews to Jewish Christianity.” (Linguistic Evidence for the Lucan Source L, JBL 29 (1910), p. 139-40) Even more to my position was “G. L. Hahn, that the author of Luke was Silas in the Emmaus story” (64). (That must mean “Simon”, not “Silas”.) Though I’m open now to the entirety of Luke being by Simon (not 1:1-4), that he wrote Proto-Luke is enough. Even M.-J. Lagrange agreed that Luke reflected a heavy Semitic style and that it is “impossible to distinguish between Luke and the supposed LQ source” (64-69).
These quotes from a hundred years ago would not mean much except that voices are rising again for Luke himself as Jewish , not a gentile. The platitudes of conventional scholarship take for granted that the man Luke was a gentile and that the style of his gospel is very good Greek, but these assumptions will not withstand scrutiny. If the final redactor was Greek (as for Luke 1:1-4), that does not necessarily hold for any of the main writers of Luke or the first 15 chapters of Acts.

In my #3 above I support my thesis about Luke that Simon wrote Proto-Luke by mentioning that Origen taught that this Simon was the second of the two disciples going to Emmaus. To a lesser degree than that earlier-formulated position of mine, this approximates what Bauckham published in 2006. As Dirk Jongkind at evangelicaltextualcriticism wrote:
So Simon as with Cleopas on the way to Emmaus is a modern scholarly position now of note. This can be extended in several directions. A commentator on 24:10 stated:
It seems as if the testimony of one of the disciples who went to Emmaus had been the ground of the whole former part—perhaps of the whole—of this chapter. We find consequently this account exactly agreeing with his report afterwards, Luke 24:23-24 [perhaps why some see these latter verses as an interpolation].
(Alford, Greek …Exegetical Commentary) He saw the first verses in Luke 24 as coming from the same person writing about 24:13-34, indeed the whole chapter. Raising Simon to source of Luke 24 might just as well promote him for Proto-Luke as well, perhaps the entire Luke.

Adam

But even suggesting Simon as one of the two on the way to Emmaus raises the objection from some that verse 34 cannot refer to an otherwise unknown Simon, so it must be Simon Peter, one of the apostles in Jerusalem who told this to the two, in spite of the awkwardness of the Greek that with the comfortable Bezan reading would have the Simon to be one of the two arriving with their news. However, the objection utterly fails. If the Simon was the writer, he was certainly known to himself, and his text probably read “to me” or (with Loisy) “to us”. By the time the text would read “Simon”, this Simon would be the heir-apparent or presiding Bishop of Jerusalem, perhaps more known to the readers there than Peter. This man was either the brother of Jesus or cousin through his father Cleopas.

Another implication that Simon was the author comes from the church father Theophylact who stated that the man Luke was the second man going to Emmaus. He accepted that much of Luke 24 seemed first-hand so the common belief in Luke as the author led him to view him as personally involved in Luke 24:13-34. Many modern commentators accepted Luke’s involvement here, apparently impressed with how much this looked like eyewitness testimony. Protestants routinely accepted that Luke was the author, so the implication seemed clear to them that he was the other man on the way to Emmaus. This was standard in the 18th and 19th centuries from commentators such as Adam Clarke and Gill.

They believed this without any biblical or early church father support. How much more now should their logic about an eyewitness writer apply to my thesis that Simon was the prime author of Luke 24, that it is largely from his Proto-Luke. That Luke was with Cleophas has long been regarded as untenable for lack of any evidence that Luke was involved that early. Yet that opinion provides support for Simon as the prime writer here, for that fits his time and place.

As for why this gospel is attributed to Luke, not to Simon, the Jerusalem church was regarded with suspicion as heretical by the time Irenaeus specifically named Luke as author about 185 CE.
http://www.archive.org/stream/MN4146...cmf_0_djvu.txt J. M. Creed,Gospel According to St. Luke, p. xiii.
Obviously, Justin could have meant “Simon” even more than he meant “Luke”, linked to Jesus as a relative. The actual writing of Luke might have involved Luke as a translator, redactor, or author of the dedication to Theophilus, but he would have been more politically correct to name as author.

This scholar J. M. Creed is famous as the one who put a cloud around B. H. Streeter’s Proto-Luke concept. Vincent Taylor responded to Creed quite substantively, noting especially that Creed wound up concluding that Q and L could indeed have been put together before Mark was consulted. Creed’s book does note that there are some specific verses in Luke that don’t look like insertions in an underlying Proto-Luke, but he fails to prove that the reverse is more likely. Some mixture occurred that can’t be readily explained. Yet Creed’s minor disagreements have quelled further research on Proto-Luke.
And further research certainly was necessary. As the above closed about 1930, the concept of the Twelve-Source had emerged only in Germany with E. Meyer, and the reworkings of it in England as by Wilfred Knox never finalized the delineation of the portion of Mark that might have already gotten into Proto-Luke before the final version of Mark coalesced and became available for Luke as we know it. The Twelve-Source studies got derailed by the great new manuscript discoveries at Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea caves.

As a study in how short of perfection the gospel studies were as of 1930, consider The Gospel of Luke by W. Manson. Proto-Luke was still an open issue for him, but he did nothing with it except noting that it starts with Luke 3:1 (p. 24). Already Form Criticism was so central to his thinking that he did not give serious attention to the personalities of the sources, just their geographic traditions. Thus he found the Special Source in Luke took the Judean-Christian view (xx, xxiv, xxvi). Manson in line with most scholars did not find any Passion Narrative in Q, but the account in Luke drew heavily on the Judean source. In spite of the length and vivid details of the Walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-34), he regarded the other disciple besides Cleopas as “Unnamed, though later tradition calls him Simon or fancifully identifies him with Luke himself. (267) “ Slavishly following Moffatt’s translation that was the basis for his commentary, Manson had to find the “Simon” in verse 36 to refer to Simon Peter among the Eleven gathered at the Jerusalem destination. In spite of what he had just said about later tradition (just 150 years later with Origen, not really “late”) and Simon, he overlooked the appealing textual variant that would make this Simon the other of the two who went to Emmaus. Nor could this Simon to Emmaus be Simon Peter, because Manson is emphatic that the Eleven already in Jerusalem would have to include Peter. At this point Manson becomes nebulous, acknowledging that the gospels don’t tell us anything about a Resurrection appearance to Peter. Nothing daunted, Manson pointed out that Mark 16:7 said Jesus would appear in Galilee, as then is recorded in the final verses of Matthew. Oh, so Peter had wandered up to Galilee, seen Jesus, and maybe as soon as a week gotten back to Jerusalem to greet the two. Oh, so the Walk to Emmaus occurred a week or so after the Resurrection—even though it is forcefully presented as Easter Day? Manson is quite willing to let any events in Galilee to be quite vague, as scarcely more than alluded to in Luke (where all events take place near Jerusalem), likewise refuting much of Luke. Yet he was intent on having the word “Eleven” in 24:34 to be so sacrosanct that it would determine that it included Simon Peter as already there. But since Judas was not there, nor Thomas (according to John 20), “eleven” would not hold absolutely even if Manson were a literalist. So he was a literalist about that one word, though it threw the Resurrection accounts into disarray. (Though Manson in English fashion would talk about supernatural realms impinging within the story, he rejected the Lucan bodily flourishes and regarded the events as spiritual in nature. Manson seems to have been an Arthur Conan Doyle type Spiritualist.)

Reconsidering Manson, himself so insistent on a Judean provenance for L, with the increased awareness that has come of the helpful variant on Luke 24:34, shouldn’t Bishop Simeon of Jerusalem (62 CE and decades thereafter) be the prime candidate for the second disciple to Emmaus and the author of Proto-Luke? In spite of recent attempts to regard the man Luke as Jewish, no one would suggest him as Jerusalem-based at any time.

Bingo the Clown-O

Yep. I think he should retire his moniker; go study a bunch of stuff, and then come back later as someone else – when he is in a better position to have an intelligent conversation.

gurugeorge

The HJ position is (or to be more precise, cannot without begging the question be considered to be anything other than) the hypothesis that "something happened" (along the lines of the story we know, but stripped down to the quotidian).

i.e. it's one proposed explanation for the existence of the texts, with the internal meanings they have, speaking about X, Y, and Z.

You cannot proceed as if the people in the texts actually lived and then use that to show that "something happened."

Once again, you seem like a smart guy, and I'm quite baffled by how you can't see the circularity in your procedure.

OTOH, if all you're doing is playing a game of "if ... then", that's fine, but you're not being upfront about the utter conditionality of your entire project. After all, you could be (in reality) doing nothing different than what comic fans do when they talk about superheros.

Adam

My shortcut to FRDB hindered finding that members could still post here, hence the delay in my addition below of more evidence for my still basically unique position that Bishop Simeon of Jerusalem wrote the major part of Luke.

The influence of the minority text of Luke 24:34 seems to be very recent—its reading that the two from Emmaus were talking about their own “Simon” seems to have led very few to conclude that one of them was an eyewitness (but see Jongkind quoting Bauckham in my Post #12) nor even less that that one was the author of Luke or Proto-Luke. G. L. Hahn (my post #12 above) probably accepted this reading in the late 19th century as favoring Simon as the author of Luke, about the closest of anyone to my own view. By then even conservative scholars had given up holding for Luke as the second of the two to Emmaus, but not because they had abandoned the majority text favoring Simon meaning Simon Peter. After Luke himself the improved alternative for an eyewitness from Emmaus would be the Cleopas already named at 24:18. And this would fit with the minority text or the majority text equally well, as it does not require that the “Simon” of 24:34 be the unnamed other disciple from Emmaus. Accordingly Albert M. Perry’s suggested Cleopas as eyewitness who also wrote the Judean document that he found was the basis for most of Luke 19 to 24. He specifically dismissed this writer as author of the rest of Luke, because he found it too different in nature even from the author uniquely Lukan sections.

It was perhaps the minority text of Luke 24:34 that led many to believe that Simon Peter was the second disciple, particularly because this reconciled so well with Paul’s account in I Corin. 15 of Jesus appearing first to Cephas. However, other indications are that the appearance to Peter occurred in Galilee (Mark 16:7, so many people misunderstood that the name “Peter” here was just the scribe inserting “Peter” where his eyewitness source was clumsily saying “tell me and the other disciples”.

We see little speculation any more on who that second disciple was. What has happened apparently is that diminished emphasis on eyewitnesses leaves it less academically respectable to harp on who went to Emmaus or whether one of them wrote about it.
The big picture is that I can provide academic support for various aspects of my position on Luke, but how well does all this provide evidence for my total view? I can start with Origen consistently writing about Simon as the other disciple with Cleopas, but Origen may just have accepted the (now) minority text without having some specific reasoning or tradition that Simon was the other man. Origen never suggested that this Simon wrote Luke or any part of it. Both then (in the 3rd Century) and for over a thousand years no one questioned that Luke wrote Luke. This conviction hardened within a few centuries to Theophylact’s belief that Luke was the other disciple at Emmaus. That itself carried on for a thousand years even with Protestant theologians who were supposedly more scrupulous in keeping close to the Bible. Of course, that so many believed that an eyewitness among the two wrote the Gospel of Luke is close to my view that one of them did, though my candidate is Simon.

So it remains true that Simon as author of Luke or Proto-Luke is the weakest of my seven claims for written eyewitness records about Jesus. Still my intuition seems good that Luke 24:34 English translations could be easily tweaked to imply that the Simon there was one of the two at Emmaus. There seems to have been little knowledge of the minority text that implied this, but it makes better Greek. We don’t have to make our first priority to harmonize with Paul in I Corinthians 15. We are free to acknowledge that the vividness of so much of Luke can be attributed to an eyewitness. The other alternative has to be with Burton Mack in his 1995 Who Wrote the New Testament to gush, “How great a storyteller Luke was! Who would have wanted to doubt the Emmaus story?” (p. 173, concluding six similar pages) He can hardly help from praising Luke as an historian, since he sees him as doing such a great work of fiction that it was soon accepted as history.

Adam

In addition to the Special Luke source in Luke itself, the Pericope of the Adulteress in John 7:53-8:11 is often considered to be L in style, or at least one of the two versions conflated into it.
Kyle R. Hughes has argued that one of these earlier versions is in fact very similar in style, form, and content to the Lukan special material (the so-called "L" source), suggesting that the core of this tradition is in fact rooted in very early Christian (though not Johannine) memory.[21]
Kyle R. Hughes, "The Lukan Special Material and the Tradition History of the Pericope Adulterae," Novum Testamentum 55.3 (2013): 232-251
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericop...e#cite_note-21
Kyle R. Hughes, “The Lukan Special Material and the Tradition History of the Pericope Adulterae,” Novum Testamentum 55.3 (2013): 232–251.

The great majority of scholars hold that the so-called pericope adulterae or “PA” (the story of Jesus and the adulteress found in John 7.53–8.11) is not original to John’s Gospel. The first manuscript of John to include this story is Codex Bezae (D), which dates to the fifth century, and on internal grounds these verses interrupt the narrative of John’s Gospel and feature non-Johannine vocabulary and grammar. But if the PA is not from the hand of the Fourth Evangelist, where did it come from?

Many scholars have noted that these verses contain distinctively Lukan grammar, vocabulary, and themes, but the lack of early manuscript evidence associating PA with Luke’s Gospel has made this a dead-end. Bart D. Ehrman, however, made a groundbreaking contribution several years ago (“Jesus and the Adulteress,” New Testament Studies 34 [1988]: 24–44) by demonstrating the likelihood that PA as we have it in John’s Gospel is in fact a conflation of two earlier stories, one found in Papias and the Didascalia, and the other found in Didymus and the Gospel of the Hebrews. Erhman noted that all of the Lukan features of PA John are found in the former of these (what I’ve termed “PA East” = John 8.2-7a, 10-11).

My article builds on Ehrman’s contribution by arguing that PA East and the Lukan special material (the so-called “L” source, which is that material unique to Luke’s Gospel) have remarkable similarities in their style, form, and content. Citing distinctive parallels in each category, I conclude in my article that “in terms of style, form, and content, PA East so closely resembles the L material that PA East almost surely would have been part of an original L source” (p. 247). Given a shared Syro-Palestinian provenance, I contend that a single line of transmission from L to the Didascalia is in fact quite plausible.

From all this, I draw several conclusions. Perhaps the most interesting is that “we can affirm the essential historicity of the event recorded in PA to the extent that it is preserved in the Didascalia, since identifying the account with the L source places it into the middle of the first century” (p. 247). Much of this beloved story rings true to what else we know of Jesus’ life and would almost certainly not have been the kind of account the early church would have invented.

As for why Luke left this story out of his Gospel, there’s no reason to think that he included every story he heard, and the non-conflated PA East is a bit of a bore compared to the form that appears in Codex Bezae. Nevertheless, it continued to circulate (likely orally) in Palestine, made its way into the Didascalia, and was ultimately conflated with a similar story and inserted into John’s Gospel. Why? At this point, I’ll simply refer interested parties to the work of Chris Keith, whose proposal I find quite satisfying.

This article, which is now out in Novum Testamentum, would never have seen the light of day without the unflagging encouragement and support of Dr. Wallace, for which I am most grateful. All faults, however, are entirely my own doing! A post-print pdf for those wishing to read the entire article is located http://taarcheia.wordpress.com/academic-archives/.

http://taarcheia.files.wordpress.com...-adulterae.pdf

Adam

My two current threads seem to be converging towards resolutions or at least towards a Synoptic Solution that improves upon the current favorites. This stands largely apart from my Gospel Eyewitnesses thesis here, perhaps even providing support for those who oppose me. My “MacDonald, Dennis R.—Not a Joke” supports viewing much of Matthew as closer to the source than Mark is, as is the trend of “Marcan Priority? Or Inner Circle” MacDonald posits a Q+ that included much that is found outside the Double-Tradition, whether that be unique to Matthew, to Luke, or even if in the Triple-Tradition.
The Q-Mark Hypothesis (nudging Q+ a little farther):
Already in the OP of this thread I started modifying my position on the authorship of materials related to Q except for continuing to believe that Matthew wrote the notes upon which Q1 is based. The name “Peter” is mentioned in Q 12:41 that suggests he may have had something to do with Q2, but the earlier materials associated with Q1 that I see in the Triple Tradition might best tie to Peter than to Matthew. Regardless of authorship, however, and an independent scholarly study, is whether the Triple Tradition verses I listed in Post #54 of Gospel Eyewitnesses (or to my cited article there, Underlying Sources of the Gospels)
can be explained as due to the earliest stratum in Q or to the apparently later stories involving Peter. (Right now a similar Q+ Hypothesis is popular though Dennis MacDonald’s version does not agree with mine in naming the specific verses of Q that are in Mark.) It remains the case that the original Aramaic of both Q1 and these Q1-related verses had to be independently translated between Matthew and Mark on the one hand and Luke on the other. I thus argued that Q at this stage of development had to have been available to Proto-Luke and that I agreed with the argument of Streeter that later stages of Mark became available for Luke later, in which the verbal parallels are much closer.
There is, however, a good alternate explanation, even though I have never seen it used by those who fail to see literary reasons for distinguishing Q1 from Q2. Kloppenborg and Burton Mack seem content to differentiate just based on ideology, for example. Consider, however, that the transition from Aramaic to Greek may have occurred in stages much like modern scholarship. We commonly see large chunks of text left untranslated, particularly in the main scholarly languages of German and French and in the source texts in Greek and Latin. Consider also how the words of Jesus tend to remain unchanged in the gospels. Thus we would readily expect that a Q text that still retained Jesus’s works in Q1 in Aramaic along with related (Triple Tradition) narrative even when new narrative was added in Greek about John the Baptist and apocalypticism even though new sayings of Jesus were added in Greek. Thus we might expect a stage of Mark available to Luke that included the 80% of Mark that Luke includes, but in which a large portion was in Greek and thus facilitating for those verses a closer verbal correspondence. We don’t have to assume a Proto-Luke in-between, but Luke could in this fashion have been based on gMark that had portions in Aramaic (Q1-T, that is Q1 and Twelve-Source, Triple-Tradition, in my terminology) and Greek (Ur-Marcus, including the earlier Passion Narrative that had already been translated into Greek at this point). This has the further flexibility of allowing the Ur-Marcus portion to have been an early portion of the text, as well as the Q2 underlying Matthew and Luke.
I would call this the Q-Mark Hypothesis, that Mark was still a primary source for both the other Synoptics, but that Mark itself was mostly an incrementally expanded Q.
The QL, QM, and QML Hypotheses
At some stage in the process the emerging Q has been assumed by some Q-partisans to have been abridged to form part of Mark and by Q-deniers to be an abridgement of Matthew or Luke or both. There is another possibility. What if Q continued to grow until it included all of what Luke would have gotten from Mark if he had ever seen Mark, that is, the above Q-Mark Hypothesis?
Now expand the assumption to Q growing to include L or M or both. Isn’t it strange that there is so little exclusive overlap between Mark and Luke? Doesn’t this indicate that neither saw the other? The similarities must stem from the few places where each drew from Q and yet Matthew did not. The Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke arise from each drawing from this expanded Q a little more closely than Mark did. By this Q(LM) Hypothesis Mark radically abridged Q, whereas Matthew and Luke largely transcribed in full.
A prime difficulty with this Q(LM) Hypotheses is that textual scholars have found many places where Mark seems to have conflated Matthew and Luke. However, don’t picture Mark as having just one text of Q+. It had grown in many stages. It started with just the words of Jesus from the notes in Q1—itself most likely two stages in Aramaic. Also picture translation difficulties being settled by reference to the original Aramaic. To this were added the Twelve-Source portions of our Mark in which the verbal correspondence between Mark and Luke is not very close (but too close to be just oral tradition—see my Post #54 in Gospel Eyewitnesses or go back to my cited link to my http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Underlying . For this hypothesis we have to consider the more-exact verses of Mark with Luke to be Q+ as well—see my Post #52 or the link). The contrasting quite-exact agreements of Q2 (between Matthew and Luke) might nevertheless rest on a one translation that was subject to supplementation by reference to an original Aramaic, if any. And by this hypothesis the rest of this Q+ available to Luke had been written, but we don’t know if the remaining text was on yet another manuscript from the one just mentioned that had added Q2. That makes by my count five in-process texts that might have been available for conflations to arise plus the opportunity to recheck the underlying Aramaic texts.

Adam

Getting ahead of myself, my research has skipped forward to the Gospel of Peter as well, with this complete dissertation by Timothy P. Henderson available on line.
It has been published by Brill in 2011 as The Gospel of Peter and Early Christianity. It’s over $100 but before light editing you con get it online from Marquette University:

“The People Believe that He Has Risen from the Dead; the Gospel of Peter and Early Christian Apologetics”

I am quickly agreeing with many current researchers that the Gospel of Peter shows ties to sources of our canonical gospels, not just to the finished versions—even to the Passion Narrative underlying John that Howard M. Teeple identified.

Zwaarddijk

Is that a cultural universal? Not relevant to the general arguments of this thread, but still.