IS THE PROTO-LUKE HYPOTHESIS SOUND?

[gmx]

For those who have read this: IS THE PROTO-LUKE HYPOTHESIS SOUND? (http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/o ... 47.extract), I'd be interested in whether the arguments presented are still worthwhile or whether they have been overwhelmed by the last 100 years of Lukan scholarship, in which case would I be better off looking at a more modern treatment of the subject? Any thoughts welcome...

[spin]

[58] The reception of the proto-Luke hypothesis has been mixed, and the ypothesis does not seem to play a very [59] important role in contemporary scholarship on Luke. Nonetheless, the hypothesis is important, because iit indicates that the conventional view, according to hich Mark provides the basic narrative frmework for all three synoptic gospels, may be too simple, and it encourages us to search the synoptic gospels for evidence of a non-Makan narrative framework. That said, a primary weakness of the proto-Luke hypothesis, from the point of view of the present work, is that it focuses solely on a comparison of the structure of Mark and Luke and so excludes a strue synoptic study of the narrative framework of the gospels. While the possibility of something like a proto-Luke should not be rejectd out of hand, the search for a non-Markan narrative framework necessarily entails a synoptic study of Matthew, Mark, and Luke together.

Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A Study of Their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative
Stephen Hultgren
De Gruyter 2002

[toejam]

I think a strong(ish) case can be made to show that the infancy stories of 1:5-2:52 are not original but a later add on - i.e. that the gospel originally started at 3:1. Beyond that, I'm not sure much more can be said with confidence.

[gmx]

I think a strong(ish) case can be made to show that the infancy stories of 1:5-2:52 are not original but a later add on - i.e. that the gospel originally started at 3:1. Beyond that, I'm not sure much more can be said with confidence.

That is interesting. There are studies of L material which have differentiated that material on linguistic grounds into categories such as

• Q material not used by Matthew
• Material that originated with Luke
• Luke-redacted oral-traditional material
• Material belonging to a unified separate source, either oral or written...

Now whether you subscribe to such theories or not, I think it would be interesting to know whether the infancy narrative in Luke is the product of a single author, and which of the L strata it linguistically accords most closely with.

[JoeWallack]

For those who have read this: IS THE PROTO-LUKE HYPOTHESIS SOUND? (http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/o ... 47.extract), I'd be interested in whether the arguments presented are still worthwhile or whether they have been overwhelmed by the last 100 years of Lukan scholarship, in which case would I be better off looking at a more modern treatment of the subject? Any thoughts welcome...

JW:
Christian Bible Scholarship (CBS) continues to be in denial that GMark has a primary theme of discrediting the supposed original disciples. All subsequent Gospels attempt to undo this theme (which is evidence that GMark is the original Gospel narrative). Looking at supposed "proto-Luke" material, this is obvious:

10

10:1 Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself was about to come.

The discrediting of "The Twelve" in GMark is overwhelming. It is the most important theme in GMark. So all subsequent Gospels, which all appear to have the opposite objective, crediting the original disciples, must deal with it. GLuke shows a logical later development that GLuke's Jesus expanded (greatly) Jesus' disciples. In quantity and quality. This reduces the problem of the base theme that GLuke inherited, discrediting of the original twelve. This is not evidence of "proto-Luke", it is evidence of post GMark.

I'm hip to spin's (by the way, great to have you back spin) input that complete narratives like GMark almost always have smaller narratives as sources but as yet I don't see any quality evidence for that so I'm still inclined to speculate that GMark is the original Gospel narrative.


Joseph

Son Control - Mark's 2nd Amendment. Was "son of God" Added Later to Mark 1:1? The Greek Patristic Evidence.

[spin]

I'm hip to spin's (by the way, great to have you back spin) input that complete narratives like GMark almost always have smaller narratives as sources but as yet I don't see any quality evidence for that so I'm still inclined to speculate that GMark is the original Gospel narrative.

Yo Joe! In what sense is Mark a "complete narrative"? Is Matt a complete narrative as well and how do you decide? Does it relate to the serendipitous fact that we have the gospel of Mark available? Is there not good evidence that christian texts generally developed through accretion? If so, how is Mark different if at all? And do the pointers I give such as the existence of two feedings not suggest prior independent sources to Mark?

[John2]

spin wrote:

And do the pointers I give such as the existence of two feedings not suggest prior independent sources to Mark?

I still like MacDonald's idea that these two feeding accounts are based on Homer, which he summarizes in the link below on page 85:

The presence of two stories instead of one, the connections of the stories with sailing, the emphasis on hospitality, and these subtle differences between the two accounts may be evidence that the evangelist had in mind the twin feasts that begin Books 3 and 4 of the Odyssey.

https://books.google.com/books?id=8JkFq ... ld&f=false

I'm not stuck on this idea, and Ben recently gave me some doubts about other aspects of MacDonald's theory, so if nothing else I'm just curious what you make of it.

[Bernard Muller]

Christian Bible Scholarship (CBS) continues to be in denial that GMark has a primary theme of discrediting the supposed original disciples. All subsequent Gospels attempt to undo this theme (which is evidence that GMark is the original Gospel narrative).

I don't think GMark has a primary theme of discrediting the supposed original disciples. It might look that way, but it is because "Mark" had to work with the testimonies of the disciples (more so Peter's one), who did not see/understand the wonderful Christian & divine things (which are either gross embellishment or fiction) that he put in his gospel. "Mark" had to go around that by using all kind of tricks, including that the disciples were "blind" idiots. So the discrediting, as a side effect.
http://historical-jesus.info/28.html
Jesus was rather an ordinary vagrant rural Jew who, through some flukes and after a short local public life, ended up as "Christ crucified" (http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html).
Jesus, according to Paul: http://historical-jesus.info/6.html
The leaders of the church of Jerusalem never became Christians: http://historical-jesus.info/108.html
Everything fits.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

And do the pointers I give such as the existence of two feedings not suggest prior independent sources to Mark?

I do not see anything wrong about the disciples collecting left-overs after, outside, a crowd finished a feast, not only once but twice:
http://historical-jesus.info/88.html
Philo wrote that in Egypt, during the festival of the tabernacles:
"the people are commanded to pass the whole period of the feast [festival] under tents [outside their home!] ... They honor God in songs and words ...
[the eighth day] a kind of crowning feast, not only as it would seem to this festival, but also to all the feasts of the year ..." (The special laws, II, ch.XXXIII).
Something similar would have happened in Galilee, with feasts every day for one week. I assume the first day and the last day of the festival would be when the feasting would be the greatest.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

it is because "Mark" had to work with the testimonies of the disciples

Oh, so now we're reifying the Papias nonsense, are we? Mark is a text. You know next to nothing about its writing, nothing about the reality of its content. Given its strong Latin content, vocabulary, idioms and perspective, it almost certainly has no direct connection with Judea and any "testimonies" were from the tradents whose sources cannot and could not be fathomed. Stick with texts and not hypothesized "writers".