Alan Garrow: Scrolls are so 'last century'

Covering all topics of history and the interpretation of texts, posts here should conform to the norms of academic discussion: respectful and with a tight focus on the subject matter.

Moderator: andrewcriddle

User avatar
Posts: 13872
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Alan Garrow: Scrolls are so 'last century'

Post by Giuseppe »

I don't like how Garrow and others are inclined so rapidly to believe that the current incipit of Luke is real evidence of many sources consulted by the author/editor. It seems that for them the lie is not part and parcel of what "Luke" could have done on the his source.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1341
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Alan Garrow: Scrolls are so 'last century'

Post by Ken Olson »

Sorry to be so slow in replying. I have several problems with Garrow's paper. Several have to do with how he represents the Farrer theory (generically, and Goulder, me, and Ian Mills in particular). But those are relatively minor compared to what I regard as the major claim he makes in the paper:

It is worth taking a step back at this point to observe how much of Luke,under this ‘alternating blocks’ model, was constructed without reference to Mark. Story elements in this category include: The Birth Narratives of John the Baptist and Jesus; John the Baptist’s ministry; Jesus’ Genealogy; The Temptations; The Rejection at Nazareth; The Call of the First Disciples; The Sermon on the Plain; Jesus’ Testimony to the Baptist; the long central Travel Narrative; The Lord’s Supper; The Arrest; Trial before the Sanhedrin; Trial before Pilate; Jesus before Herod; the Crucifixion; and the Resurrection. This amounts to more than three-quarters of Luke’s total narrative and includes every key juncture in the story 46. If Luke did not consult Mark “at all” for these passages, then one thing is certain: Mark was not Luke’s frame.' (Garrow, Frame and Fill, 290).

I think this claim is a non sequitur; that is, nothing in his review of the comparanda (Pliny, Josephus, Tatian, and Ammonius) leads to this conclusion. I suppose one could argue that by some stipulative definition of the word 'frame' in Garrow's mind (because he's proposing a model he calls 'frame and fill'), Mark might not qualify as what Garrow calls a frame for Luke. But if we may restate Garrow's claim a: 'Mark could not have provided Luke with the basic chronology of his narrative', I do not see a sound (or inferentially strong) argument for that conclusion in the paper.

If anyone does see such an argument in the paper, please state it here.


User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8483
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara

Re: Alan Garrow: Scrolls are so 'last century'

Post by Peter Kirby »

Thank you, Ken! It was a treat to have had this discussion and to have been persuaded on this point.
Post Reply