rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:19 pm
rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:56 am
Very interesting gmx. BTW, how are you going about identifying these words? Do they come from a known study? Are you identifying them yourself?
Asking this again. What is your procedure here gmx? Also, what about words that appear in Luke 1,2 & 24 and Acts, but not in Luke 3-23? Also, also, how reliable is attestation of specific words in Marcion?
Apologies @rgprice, I missed this question.
I would describe my "procedure here" as
haphazard naive inquisition.
My process has been to:
- identify "characteristic Lukan vocabulary" used in Luke-Acts, find identical vocabulary attested in parallel passages in Marcion's gospel, and see where the data takes me. (I had no idea whether any existed, or even if they did, whether my sub-hobbyist skillset would allow me to identify them.)
- To identify candidate vocabulary, I am using Characteristic Language Use in Luke. The Search for Reliable Criteria by Adelbert Denaux.
- I am then finding instances of the candidate word on biblehub.com as per the links in the "candidate" posts I've been making, and looking at the occurrences list and making an arbitrary assessment of whether it looks "Lukan (Luke-Acts) enough".
- Attestation of the candidate words in gMarcion is determined via The Text of Marcion's Gospel by D T Roth.
The inference would be, if
enough examples could be found, this would tend to argue against the notion that Luke used Marcion as a source, and instead support the inverse.
If New Testament occurrences of the "characteristic Lukan vocabulary" are almost exclusively limited to Luke-Acts, and the occurrence is attested in Marcion, then it is simpler to explain its existence in Marcion by Marcion copying Luke, than vice-versa.
Also, what about words that appear in Luke 1,2 & 24 and Acts, but not in Luke 3-23?
I did mention earlier in this thread that the "uniformity" of Luke-Acts was not a specific area of interest in the exercise. If a word primarily only occurs in Luke-Acts, and is reasonably represented across both volumes, then the exercise considers that word to be "Lukan". Performing a similar analysis to differentiate Lukan vocabulary specific to hypothesized redactional layers within Luke may also be an interesting topic -- just not this topic
However, it is potentially interesting that the four candidates of Lukan vocabulary postulated thus far in the thread, all of them are present in Luke chapters 1 or 2 as well as in the remainder of Luke. Obviously there is a school of thought that Luke 1/2/24 are of a different style to the remainder of Luke and therefore represent a different author's work, however, it may be that they represent a different "source", incorporated and adapted into the rest of the work by a single compiler, Luke, who has imbued the entire work with his own characteristic vocabulary. Whether that's a convincing argument or not, I'm not qualified to comment on
Also, also, how reliable is attestation of specific words in Marcion?
I am only considering it
attested in gMarcion when the work by D T Roth referenced above claims a definitive citation in one or more sources. When the reconstruction of Marcion's text is based on rationale like "such and such only specifically mentions
some-word but the rest of the verse is unproblematic", I do not consider any words in the "unproblematic not-specifically attested text" to be attested. The candidate word must be explicitly cited in the source.