- sometimes, the thing that seems selfish is necessary.
- rare birds are worth pursuing.
- it doesn’t always matter whether people understand.
- on reading Luke through, one wonders why the documentary hypothesis took so long.
- The start of Luke is wonderfully gracious. As pain and conflict increase, it gets wordier, more didactic and tries harder to explain. (‘all those with ears…’)
- when the last lemon is gone, wasabi saves the day (or at least the tuna salad).
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Published by wonderfulexchange
Kimberly Bohan is a priest in the Diocese of Lincoln, less surprised by angels than by being so far south.
View all posts by wonderfulexchange
wonderful exchange 
Cryptic yet probably plainly obvious.
I have never noticed that about Luke before, I’ll give it another read and look for the change in pace/language.
Less cryptic if you realize that this post is predicated on the last?
(it seems our comments are crossing…I see now that you’ve got it.)
What’s the documentary hypothesis?
I adore the beginning of Luke, the rest of it, less so. I’m intrigued by your discovery.
I wouldn’t claim ‘discovery’ — just noticing in fact (in impact, in emotion…) what I should have known.
The documentary hypothesis — technically ‘the two-documentary hypothesis’ or ‘the two source hypothesis’ — is the almost universally accepted theory as to how the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) got to be the way they are.
Basically,
we assume that:
Mark comes first and is shortest.
Matthew and Mark both include most of Mark, and add other bits.
Some of the bits are common to both of them.
Some of the bits are distinct to each.
Therefore, it is assumed that Matthew and Luke had access to two of the same sources when they were writing their gospels: Mark’s Gospel, and an other source (called Q, for the German word for source: Quelle (such creative folk, biblical scholars…)).
They each also had material of their own (Let’s call Luke’s bit L and Matthew’s bit M.)
So: Luke = Mark + Q + L
Matthew = Mark + Q + M
The game gets interesting when you pay attention to stories that clearly come from Q, but are told slightly differently by Luke and Matthew. So, you get to ask: why did Luke tell it this way? …put it here in the narrative? etc. And of course, you can ask the same questions of how they use the stories from Mark.
If you haven’t come across this before, try comparing the healing of the paralytic in each. The differences don’t seem huge, but they do show up the texual variations (and thus the hypothetical Q) very nicely.
ah. I think I knew this, just not what it was called. You explain it very well!