Log in

Relevant bibliographies by topics / Mark and Luke / Journal articles

To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Mark and Luke.

Journal articles on the topic 'Mark and Luke'

Author: Grafiati

Published: 22 February 2023

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Mark and Luke.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

Goodacre, Mark. "Fatigue in the Synoptics." New Testament Studies 44, no. 1 (January 1998): 45–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500016349.

Full text

Abstract:

Matthew and Luke sometimes write versions of Marcan pericopae in which they make initial changes, only to lapse into the thought or wording of the original. Clear examples are Matt 14.1–12 ∥Mark 6.14–29 (Death of John); Matt 8.1–4 ∥ Mark 1.40–5 (Leper); Matt 12.46–50 ∥ Mark 3.31–5 (Mother and Brothers); Luke 8.4–15 ∥ Mark 4.1–20 (Sower); Luke 5.17–26 ∥ Mark 2.1–12 (Paralytic) and Luke 9.10–17 ∥ Mark 6.30–44 (Five Thousand), all of which make good sense on the theory of Marcan Priority. ‘Fatigue’ may also suggest a solution to the problem of double tradition material: Luke 9.1–6 (cf. Matt 10.5–15, Mission Charge) and Luke 19.11–27 ∥ Matt 25.14–30 (Talents) both make good sense on the theory of Luke’s use of Matthew.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Murray, Gregory. "Did Luke Use Mark?" Downside Review 104, no. 357 (October 1986): 268–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001258068610435703.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Weeden Sr., Theodore. "Polemics as a Case for Dissent: A Response to Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6, no. 2 (2008): 211–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/174551908x349699.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractContra Richard Bauckham's thesis that the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John were based upon original eyewitness testimony—in the case of Luke, the preface declaration; in the case of Mark, Peter's testimony; in the case of John, the testimony of Papias' John the Elder—I submit here evidence to the contrary, focusing my response on Luke and Mark With respect to Luke, I propose, drawing upon the works of Loveday Alexander and Joseph Tyson, that the Lukan preface is a second-century anti-Marcionite appendage to ‘original’ Luke. In the case of Mark, apart from any Petrine testimony, I argue that Mark created the passion narrative in large part from Davidic-saga and Josephan hypotexts.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Pettem, Michael. "Luke's Great Omission and his View of the Law." New Testament Studies 42, no. 1 (January 1996): 35–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500017069.

Full text

Abstract:

According to the most widely accepted theory, Luke and Matthew used the gospel of Mark as the main source for their own gospels. In so doing, Matthew reproduced almost all the contents of Mark; Luke however omitted one large block of Marcan material: Mark 6.45–8.26. Luke may have omitted this section because his copy of the gospel of Mark was lacking this section, or because, although he knew this material, he chose to omit it from his gospel.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Garrow, Alan. "Streeter's ‘Other’ Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis." New Testament Studies 62, no. 2 (February 29, 2016): 207–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688515000454.

Full text

Abstract:

B. H. Streeter'sFour Gospelshas had a critical influence on the study of the Synoptic Problem. Unfortunately, this seminal work rests on two fundamental errors. When these are corrected, however, Streeter points to a fully satisfying solution to the Synoptic Problem: Mark wrote first, Luke used Mark and other sources and, at a later date, Matthew conflated Mark, Luke and other sources – including some also used by Luke.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Farmer, W. R. "The Passion Prediction Passages and the Synoptic Problem: a Test Case." New Testament Studies 36, no. 4 (October 1990): 558–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s002868850001972x.

Full text

Abstract:

Some scholars continue to argue on compositional grounds that the Two-Document Hypothesis is to be preferred to the view that Luke first copied Matthew and that Mark then copied Matthew and Luke. The best way to answer such claims is to take a test case and discuss the matter in detail. It will be argued that the evidence indicates that there are serious difficulties with the view that Matthew and Luke independently copied Mark, a view essential to the Two-Document Hypothesis. It will further be argued that the view that Luke knew Matthew and that Mark used both Matthew and Luke is, in comparison to the Two-Document Hypothesis, the hypothesis to be preferred on compositional grounds.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Elliott, J. K., and John Wenham. "Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke." Novum Testamentum 34, no. 2 (April 1992): 200. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1561043.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Mealand, David L. "The Synoptic Problem and Statistics: A Review." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40, no. 2 (October 26, 2017): 236–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0142064x17739555.

Full text

Abstract:

This book offers an improved version of Honoré’s triple link Synoptic model. Under the assumption of Markan priority it ﬁnds new evidence for dependence between Matthew and Luke in their use of Mark. It offers a new analysis of the fact that Luke and Matthew use Mark in different ways in different sets of passages, and it sifts out those passages where evidence of dependence is most concentrated. It also analyses patterns of agreement arising where a text other than Mark is considered to be the earliest. The concluding sections offer a more literary analysis of selected passages in which Luke and Matthew agree more closely in retaining (or not retaining) words in Mark, or agree in supplying words not in Mark.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Damm, Alex. "Ornatus: An Application of Rhetoric to the Synoptic Problem." Novum Testamentum 45, no. 4 (2003): 338–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853603322538749.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractIn this essay I shall consider ancient rhetoric as a means to suggest synoptic relationships. Focusing on the stylistic virtue of ornatus ("adornment"), I shall examine three triple tradition sentences in which the gospel of Mark employs a word used nowhere by the gospels of Luke or Matthew. Focusing on the relationship between Mark and the other gospels, I shall ask whether it is more likely that Mark adds the word to Matthew and/or Luke on the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, or whether Matthew and/or Luke delete it from Mark on the Two-Document Hypothesis. My study leads me to two conclusions. On grounds of ornatus, editing on either source hypothesis is plausible. But such editing on the Two-Document Hypothesis is more plausible, since Mark's addition of each word would entail the unlikely discovery of near-perfect or coincidentally co-ordinated literary patterns in Matthew and/or Luke.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Downing, F. Gerald. "A Paradigm Perplex: Luke, Matthew and Mark." New Testament Studies 38, no. 1 (January 1992): 15–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500023055.

Full text

Abstract:

In their recent survey of the synoptic problem E. P. Sanders and M. Davies argue that a complicated solution must be held to be the most likely, and conclude,Mark probably did sometimes conflate material which came separately to Matthew and Luke (so the Griesbach hypothesis), and Matthew probably did conflate material which came separately to Mark and Luke (the twosource hypothesis). Thus we think that Luke knew Matthew (so Goulder, the Griesbachians and others) and that both Luke and Matthew were the original authors of some of their sayings material (so especially Goulder). Following Boismard, we think it likely that one or more of the gospels existed in more than one edition, and that the gospels as we have them may have been dependent on more than one proto- or intermediate gospel.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Lambrecht, J. "John the Baptist and Jesus in Mark 1.1–15: Markan Redaction of Q?" New Testament Studies 38, no. 3 (July 1992): 357–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500021809.

Full text

Abstract:

In the most recent monograph on John the Baptist Josef Ernst first deals with the Baptist in the Markan gospel and only then, in his second chapter, with the Baptist in Q, although it is generally recognized that Q is older than Mark.1Moreover, in Ernst's opinion there is no contact between Mark and Q. Ernst does not even consider that Mark 1.2bc may be taken from Q (cf. Matt 11.10 = Luke 7.27),2nor does he see in Mark 1.7–8 a more recent, re-written text of a more original version of Q.3The extent of Q in John's preaching is, as in many Q studies, limited to Matt 3.7–12=Luke 3.7–9, 16b–17. In this text Matt 3.11=Luke 3.16 is ‘trimmed’: ‘I baptize you with water, but the Most Powerful One (= God) is coming … He will baptize you with a holy Spirit and fire.’ Thus neither ‘after me’ nor the qualification of John's unworthiness is retained.4

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Kilgallen, John J. "The Plan of the ‘ΝΟΜΙΚΟΣ’ (Luke 10.25–37)." New Testament Studies 42, no. 4 (October 1996): 615–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500021457.

Full text

Abstract:

At 12.28 Mark speaks of a scribe who asked Jesus ‘What is the first commandment?’ The motive for the scribe's question is not expressed, but from the way the story unfolds (12.28–34), it seems that his question was sincere, straightforward and not devious. It is very unlikely that Luke (10.25–37) was influenced by Mark in details,1 but, if Mark be the principal Lucan source, Mark's story was known to Luke and was likely instrumental, we can say, in Luke's decision to incorporate his own story about a νομικός whose encounter with Jesus has certain affinities with that of Mark's γραμματεύς

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Goulder, Michael. "Book Review: Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke." Theology 95, no. 763 (January 1992): 53–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0040571x9209500118.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Davis, Stephen T. "Mark and Luke: History or Imitative Fiction?" Philosophia Christi 6, no. 2 (2004): 235–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/pc20046226.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

RIUS-CAMPS, JOSEP. "The Pericope of the Adulteress Reconsidered: The Nomadic Misfortunes of a Bold Pericope." New Testament Studies 53, no. 3 (May 31, 2007): 379–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688507000197.

Full text

Abstract:

This article considers afresh the origin of the pericope of the adulteress, which is absent from some important manuscripts. Comparison of the witnesses to the text reveals that it has been preserved in two distinct forms, one (attested by Codex Bezae and the minuscules 2722 and 1071) that is Markan in style, and the other (attested by f13) that reproduces the style of Luke. The conclusion drawn is that the account was first composed by Mark (and placed after Mark 12.12) and subsequently adopted by Luke (after Luke 20.19). Because of the apparent moral leniency displayed by Jesus, the story would have been removed at an early date from both Gospels, and then later reinserted by some manuscripts but at different places.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Archer, Joel. "Ancient Bioi and Luke's Modifications of Matthew's Longer Discourses." New Testament Studies 68, no. 1 (December 9, 2021): 76–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688521000242.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractMatthew's Gospel is known for its long, flowing discourses. The speeches in Luke, by contrast, are shorter and scattered throughout his narrative. Some believe this difference is evidence against the so-called ‘Farrer hypothesis’ – the view that Luke used both Mark and Matthew as sources. One response, however, is that Luke wanted to bring his speech lengths into closer conformity with the literary standards of Greco-Roman bioi. An analysis of seventeen representative bioi suggests that Matthew's speeches were exceptionally long for medium-sized biographies such as his own. This fact provides a plausible literary motivation for Luke to abbreviate Matthew's discourses.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Marshall, I. Howard. "Commentaries on the Synoptic Gospels: Mark and Luke." Bible Translator 45, no. 1 (January 1994): 139–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026009359404500104.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Murray, A. Gregory. "Review of Book: Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke." Downside Review 109, no. 376 (July 1991): 230–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001258069110937609.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Gathercole, Simon. "Luke in theGospel of Thomas." New Testament Studies 57, no. 1 (December 16, 2010): 114–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s002868851000024x.

Full text

Abstract:

This article argues that Luke influences theGospel of Thomas, on the basis of an examination of those places where redactional material in Luke not in Mark is found inThomas.This has been argued already by various scholars, but the present study aims (a) to refine further the method used to argue this position and (b) to expand the catalogue of thoseThomassayings which can be shown to indicate Lukan influence. Furthermore, it proposes (c) to respond to recent scholarship arguing thatThomasinfluences Luke, as well as to scholars maintaining the independence ofThomasand the Synoptics.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Moret, Jean-René. "‘Aucun prophète n'est propice dans sa propre patrie’ : la péricope de Nazareth." New Testament Studies 60, no. 4 (September 10, 2014): 466–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688514000149.

Full text

Abstract:

Jesus' preaching at Nazareth in Luke 4 is usually read as the rejection of a prophet because he is too familiar to his home town, as is the case in Matthew and Mark. This reading puts Luke's text under heavy strains that make it seem inconsistent or misconstrued. We propose that it should rather be read as Jesus refusing to be used for his home country's benefits, based upon a reconsideration of Luke 4.24 in the light of Luke 4.19. We then put this reading in synoptical perspective.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Barus, Armand. "KONSEP MISKIN DALAM LUKAS-KISAH PARA RASUL." Jurnal Amanat Agung 16, no. 2 (June 2, 2021): 1–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.47754/jaa.v16i2.465.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstrak: Kemiskinan dalam Injil Lukas-Kisah Para Rasul seharusnya tidak dipahami sebagai kemiskinan rohani atau kemiskinan sosial atau kemiskinan moral. Kemiskinan dalam Injil Lukas-Kisah Para Rasul merujuk kepada kemiskinan ekonomi. Kesimpulan demikian diperoleh melalui perbandingan narasi unik dalam Lukas, narasi dalam Lukas dan Matius, dan narasi dalam Lukas, Matius, dan Markus. Lukas kemudian mendemonstrasikan dalam kitab Kisah Para Rasul bagaimana jemaat Kristen perdana memberi perhatian serius terhadap orang miskin materi. Kesatuan Injil Lukas-Kisah Para Rasul masih tetap dipertahankan meski konsep miskin yang dominan dalam Injil Lukas absen di dalam Kisah Para Rasul. Kata Kunci: Injil Lukas, Kisah Para Rasul, tradisi L, tradisi Q, kesatuan Lukas-Kisah Para Rasul, miskin. Abstract: Poverty in Luke-Acts should not be understood as spiritual or social or moral poverty. Poor people in Luke-Acts refer to the economically poor. This conclusion is reached through comparing narration unique to Luke, narrations in Luke and Matthew, and narrations in Luke, Matthew, and Mark. Luke then demonstrates in Acts how early Christian church seriously gave attention to the economically poor people. Unity Luke-Acts can be sustained although the concept of poverty which is dominant in Luke is absent in Acts. Keyword: Luke, Acts, L tradition, Q tradition, Unity Luke-Acts, poor.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

FRIEDRICHSEN, T. A. "The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 65, no. 4 (December 1, 1989): 395–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/etl.65.4.556429.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Andrejevs, Olegs. "The “Reconstructed Mark” and the Reconstruction of Q: A Valid Analogy?" Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture 50, no. 2 (March 29, 2020): 83–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146107920913793.

Full text

Abstract:

Described as a “thought experiment” by a number of scholars, Mark’s Gospel as reconstructed exclusively from its reception by Matthew and Luke has been repeatedly advanced as a challenge to the reconstruction of Q in recent decades. This essay analyzes the “Reconstructed Mark” argument, finding it to form a poorly calibrated analogy for the Q document. It will be shown that Matthew and Luke treat Q, which is a sayings collection, differently from the sayings of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, which are already valued by them more highly than Mark’s narrative. Further arguments in support of the feasibility of Q’s reconstruction and the attainability of its text will also be provided.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Charette, Blaine. "The Spirit in Mark." Pneuma 43, no. 3-4 (December 13, 2021): 400–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15700747-bja10046.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract There are fewer direct references to the Holy Spirit in Mark’s Gospel than in the other gospels. For this reason, there has been much less discussion of the significance of the Spirit to Mark’s theology in comparison with other gospels, particularly Luke and John. Yet in the case of Mark it is not helpful or appropriate to assess the importance of this subject based merely on the frequency of use of certain key terms. Of greater importance is the placement of references to the Spirit within the narrative structure of the Gospel and the manner in which the Spirit is brought into relation to other themes and topics that are central to the interests of the Gospel.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Mateja, Leszek. "Dwie wersje Modlitwy Pańskiej odczytane w kluczu inicjacyjnym." Vox Patrum 67 (December 16, 2018): 389–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.31743/vp.3406.

Full text

Abstract:

The article attempts to prove the validity of Origen’s thesis that two versions of the Lord’s Prayer noted by evangelists Matthew and Luke represents two different prayers. To validate the thesis, the author interprets extracts from the New Testament by using the initiation method. Through this method he demonstrates that catechumens were probably taught the version of the Lord’s Prayer noted by Luke, while the version written by Mark could be destined for those who had been baptised.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Tichý, Ladislav. "Narrativity and Theology in the Gospels of Mark and Luke." Studia theologica 15, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 24–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.5507/sth.2013.002.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Andrejevs, Olegs. "Reception of the Twelve in Matthew and Luke: Comparing the Current Synoptic Hypotheses." Expository Times 133, no. 6 (February 16, 2022): 233–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00145246221074815.

Full text

Abstract:

On the Markan priority, the portrayal and development of the Twelve belong to the most iconic improvements of Matthew and Luke over Mark’s gospel. Going back to the 19th century, proponents of Matthew’s and Luke’s independence have pointed out Luke’s non-use of Matthean additions to Mark, including such passages as Matthew 9:9; 14:28-31; 16:17-19; 17:24-27. In recent decades, defenders of the Farrer hypothesis (Luke’s use of Matthew) have attempted to explain Luke’s failure to take over Matthew’s changes of Mark in these instances with a range of proposals. This article takes up the debate, responding to the arguments of the Farrer scholars and engaging the recently resurgent Matthean Posteriority hypothesis (Matthew’s use of Luke) which, it will be suggested, faces a similar set of issues.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Glover, Richard. "Patristic Quotations and Gospel Sources." New Testament Studies 31, no. 2 (April 1985): 234–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500014661.

Full text

Abstract:

Years of research on the sources of the gospels of Matthew and Luke led long since to three conclusions which many of us still find valid, first, that both these authors used our gospel of Mark; second, that they both used another source, commonly called Q; third, that each also used a source unknown to the other, and these two sources have been named M and L respectively. But about the nature of Q, M and L there are plenty of unanswered questions - such as, were they single sources or does each name cover several sources which we cannot easily disentangle from one another? Were they written or oral? How accurately do Matthew and Luke, who abbreviate Mark, quote their other sources? The language of Q was Aramaic; was the same true of other sources?

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Kelly, James E. "“To Evangelize the Poor”." Lumen et Vita 9, no. 2 (May 18, 2019): 21–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.6017/lv.v9i2.11125.

Full text

Abstract:

In this essay, I will examine the scriptural basis for Origen’s interpretation of Luke 4:18-19 as an allusion to Jesus’ identity as savior, not as a call to social justice. I argue that this interpretation is consistent with the intentions of the gospel writer. The essay begins with an analysis of the gospel writer’s redaction of Mark 1 in Luke 3-5. Based on that redaction, I hypothesize that Luke intends to emphasize Jesus’s identity with the anointed one mentioned in Isaiah 61:1-2. This excerpt from Isaiah not only gives Luke 4:18-19 its Christological significance but also clarifies Luke’s understanding of poverty in relation to the Gospel. I then examine Origen’s application of the Lucan passage for his pastoral purposes. To conclude, I suggest that we, like Luke and Origen, read Scripture Christocentrically in order to better facilitate the church’s encounter with Christ during the liturgy.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Menzies, Robert. "Acts 2.17-21: A Paradigm for Pentecostal Mission." Journal of Pentecostal Theology 17, no. 2 (2008): 200–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/174552508x377493.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractAccording to Menzies, a careful analysis of Acts 2:17-21 reveals that Luke has modified the Joel quotation in three significant ways, and that each modification serves to highlight an important aspect of the mission of the church. The church's mission is to be characterized by visions and divine guidance, bold witness in the face of intense opposition, and signs and wonders. These three themes run throughout the narrative of Acts, and Luke anticipates that they will continue to mark the life of the church in 'these last days'. Luke's narrative, then, is much more than a nostalgic review of how it all began. Although Luke is concerned to stress the reliability of the apostolic witness, his purposes go beyond this. Luke presents the missionary praxis of the early church as a model that is relevant for His church and ours.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Staley, Jeffrey L., and Stephen D. Moore. "Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist Perspectives: Jesus Begins to Write." Journal of Biblical Literature 114, no. 1 (1995): 152. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3266612.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Kitzberger, Ingrid Rosa. "Stabat Mater? Re-birth at the Foot of the Cross." Biblical Interpretation 11, no. 3 (2003): 468–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156851503322566868.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractThis paper offers a fresh look at the mother of Jesus at the foot of the cross in John's account of the crucifixion. By reading John 19:25-27 intertextually/interfigurally at the crossroads between John and the Synoptics, in particular Mark 15:34 (= Ps. 22:1), Luke 2:22-38, and Luke 7:11-17, and at the crossroads between text and self, new dimensions are added to the characterization of Jesus' mother (and the beloved disciple) in John's story. Reader response criticism and autobiographical biblical criticism have informed this paper.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Meadors, Edward P. "Isaiah 40.3 and the Synoptic Gospels’ Parody of the Roman Road System." New Testament Studies 66, no. 1 (December 3, 2019): 106–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688519000377.

Full text

Abstract:

This article proposes that the Synoptic Gospels’ pronouncements of Isa 40.3 (Matt 4.3; Mark 1.2–3; Luke 3.4–6) invite a comparison with the Roman road system and its extensive broadcast of Roman imperial ideology. Heralding the sovereignty of a coming king on newly constructed roads through difficult terrain, Matthew, Mark and Luke portray the coming of the kingdom of God in terms analogous to the laying of Roman roads followed by the enforcement of Roman rule throughout the Roman Empire. If Isa 40.3 heralded the arrival of the true God through the ministry of Jesus, as the Synoptic Gospels proclaim, then Rome's pretentions were by implication counterfeit. The engineering feats of raising ravines, levelling heights, smoothing terrain and making straight highways denoted Roman expansion, conquest and the standardisation of Roman imperial ideology. In contradistinction, the Synoptic Gospels’ citations of Isa 40.3 presage the triumph of God, while simultaneously parodying Roman imperial ideology.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Kraebel, A. B. "Middle English Gospel Glosses and the Translation of Exegetical Authority." Traditio 69 (2014): 87–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0362152900001926.

Full text

Abstract:

The non-Wycliffite Middle English commentaries on the Synoptic Gospels in MSS London, British Library Egerton 842 (Matt.), Cambridge, University Library Ii.2.12 (Matt.), and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College Parker 32 (Mark and Luke) are important witnesses to the widespread appeal of scholastic exegesis in later fourteenth-century England. They appear to have been produced by two different commentators (or teams of commentators) who worked without knowledge of one another's undertakings but responded similarly to the demand for vernacular biblical material. The commentary on Matthew represents a more extensive effort at compilation than the Mark and Luke texts, and, in his elaborate prologue, the Matthew commentator translates the priorities of scholastic Latin criticism even as he tailors his writing to meet the perceived needs of his English readers. Especially when considered alongside the WycliffiteGlossed Gospels, these texts illustrate further the variety and richness of vernacular biblical commentary composed in the decades following the important precedent of Richard Rolle'sEnglish Psalter.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Riesner, Rainer. "Back To the Historical Jesus Through Paul and His School (the Ransom Logion—Mark 10.45; Matthew 20.28)." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1, no. 2 (2003): 171–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/147686900300100204.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractLuke knew the Ransom logion (Mk 10.45/Mt. 20.28) from his special tradition. In the ethical context of Jesus' farewell address, Luke (22.27) re placed it by another word of Jesus. But at three other prominent places Luke made use of parts of the Ransom logion. The introduction is cited in Lk. 19.10. According to Luke, Paul referred to the Ransom logion in his farewell address at Miletus in a sacrificial (Acts 20.28) and in an ethical (Acts 20.35) dimension, thus showing the apostle to be a true follower of Jesus. Reminiscences of the Ransom logion can be found in two other texts of the Pauline school with possible connections to Luke (Col. 1.13-14; 1 Tim. 2.5-6). Already Paul knew the Ransom logion. With some kind of introductory formula he gives its substance in 1 Cor. 9.19-23 and 10.33— 11.1 and there are other probable (1 Cor. 7.22-23; Phil. 2.7; Rom. 5.15) or possible (Gal. 1.4; 1.10; 2.17, 20; 3.13; 4.5; Rom. 15.8-9) allusions. The Ransom logion might have played a role in the dispute between Paul and Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2.17-21) around 48 and apparently has shaped the pre-Pauline credal formula in 1 Cor. 15.3-5 in the 30s. All this strengthens the trust in the authenticity of the Ransom logion. The tradition history of this particular logion might offer some general insights in the different streams of the Jesus tradition in the early Church.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Goulder, Michael. "The Pre-Marcan Gospel." Scottish Journal of Theology 47, no. 4 (November 1994): 453–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0036930600046597.

Full text

Abstract:

If we are frank, we have no idea whether there was a pre-Marcan Gospel, in the sense of a continuous written account of Jesus. It is widely believed that there was a continuous Passion narrative before Mark, and it is often thought that there were some collections of pericopae, like the controversy stories in 2.1–3.6; but denials that there was a continuous story, in some sense like our Mark, are as weakly supported as assertions of the same. It could be that Friedrich Schleiermacher was right, and that certain διηγ⋯σεις existed before Mark, to which Luke had access. We might think it rather singular that so elaborate a work as Mark should appear de novo, like Athena from the head of Zeus. But we have no evidence to take us beyond conjecture.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

PICIRILLI, ROBERT E. "Time and Order in the Circumstantial Participles of Mark and Luke." Bulletin for Biblical Research 17, no. 2 (January 1, 2007): 241–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/26423923.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Stanley Porter has suggested that the order of circumstantial participles in relation to the verbs on which they depend tends to indicate how they relate temporally: antecedent if before the primary verb and contemporaneous or subsequent if following. Grammarians whom he cites as having partly recognized this do not really anticipate his view. More important, numerous examples of circumstantial participles in the Gospels of Mark and Luke show a different pattern and fail to sustain his formulation. Aorist circumstantial participles typically precede their primary verbs but may be temporally antecedent to or contemporaneous with them. Present circumstantial participles may precede or follow their primary verbs and may be temporally antecedent to or contemporaneous with them regardless of order. Perfect circumstantial participles, whether before or after their primary verbs, are typically contemporaneous with them. The careful exegete should focus on the context alone to determine if any given circumstantial participle is temporally antecedent to, contemporaneous with, or even subsequent to its primary verb.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Pope, Michael. "Extraction and Emission Language in Luke 8:45." Novum Testamentum 63, no. 2 (March 17, 2021): 198–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685365-12341698.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract This brief philological study focuses on Luke’s alteration of Mark’s συνθλίβειν, “compress,” to ἀποθλίβειν, “to squeeze out,” in the famous tableau of the woman with chronic uterine blood flow (Mark 5:25–34; Luke 8:42–48). The author first points to the general lack of critical attention this change receives and then traces out why the two terms, συνθλίβειν and ἀποθλίβειν, should not be understood as interchangeable. Finally, he suggests that Luke’s shift to ἀποθλίβειν offered him a term with more expansive semantic range for depicting the exit of δύναµις, “power,” from Jesus and the woman’s subsequent healing.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Bhandari, Sabindra Raj. "From Renunciation to Nirvana and Beatitude: What Is Common in Buddha and Christ?" Prithvi Academic Journal 4 (May 12, 2021): 96–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/paj.v4i0.37018.

Full text

Abstract:

This article explores the confluence in the ideas that Buddha postulated in the Dhammapada and Christ in the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John in the New Testament. In spite of the differences in their context, arena, and even in trends and tenets, they both project that the renouncement in action lead the worldly affairs to the realm of spiritual illumination. Both the Dhammapada and the four gospels from the New Testament clearly proclaim that subtraction of the ego along with the pursuit of wisdom eventually open the path of inner evolution for redemption—Nirvana and Beatitude. Likewise, the concepts of Bodhisattva and Messiah have similar mission to redeem the humanity. All these concepts invite a new revisiting to qualify them, adding a new in-depth insight. This fresh revisit widens new dimensions to view the meeting points between the seemingly diverse religious philosophies. Therefore, this paper has applied the qualitative approach to the ideas from the divine creations—the Dhammapada and the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John from the New Testament.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Nelson, Peter K. "The Unitary Character of Luke 22.24–30." New Testament Studies 40, no. 4 (October 1994): 609–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500024036.

Full text

Abstract:

Scholarship has commonly treated the sayings in the Lukan Last Supper discourse (22.14–38) more or less as pearls on a string; it is their poignancy as separate elements rather than any significant unifying features to which attention has typically been drawn. This is especially apparent when one surveys research on Luke 22.24–30. Until recently it has been usual for scholarly work on this text to be heavily influenced (sometimes unconsciously) by tradition-historical concerns, with the result that 22.24–7 and 22.28–30 are analyzed as independent sayings. Consequently, the lack of a parallel in Luke 22.24–7 to the ransom saying in Mark 10.41–5 is a common point of scholarly interest, as are possible developments from a ‘Q’ form behind Luke 22.28–30 and Matt 19.28. This type of approach, with its primary focus on layers of tradition, however, has often prevented scholarship from exploring or even observing the unifying features of Luke's finished work in 22.24–30.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Carey, Greg. "Moving Things Ahead." Biblical Interpretation 21, no. 3 (2013): 302–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685152-1071a0002.

Full text

Abstract:

Recent and influential proposals (Richard Bauckham; James Dunn) have emphasized the role of memory in the composition of the Gospels. Despite the diversity and sophistication of these proposals, they have led to a devaluation of source and redaction analysis among some interpreters. On the contrary, attention to Lukan redaction of Mark, particularly with respect to the sequence of pericopae, reveals both the value of source and redaction analysis and the limitations of memory-oriented accounts of Gospel origins. Lukan transposition manifests itself most clearly in four pericopae: Jesus in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30), the woman who anoints Jesus (7:36-50), the question of eternal life (10:25-37), and the tradition of the fig tree (13:6-9). Looking at these pericopae one by one, many interpreters debate whether Luke relies on independent traditions; taken as a group, they reveal Luke’s redactional and literary activity. In each instance (a) Luke neatly excises the pericope from its location in Mark’s sequence, (b) Luke changes fundamental dynamics of the pericope, and (c) Luke’s redactional activity favors widely accepted Lukan emphases. Memory-oriented interpretations will undervalue Luke’s emphases in these instances.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Walton, Steve. "Reflections on Reflections." Evangelical Quarterly 93, no. 2 (June 16, 2022): 141–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/27725472-09302004.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract This essay responds to those of Darrell Bock, Craig Blomberg and Mark Strauss looking back on Howard Marshall’s Luke Historian and Theologian after over 50 years. It first highlights the impact of Marshall’s work on the growth in confidence among evangelicals in engaging in NT scholarship, the development of evangelical biblical theology, and (within that) a focus on the message of Luke-Acts. It then sketches four areas for future scholarship which Marshall’s work opens up: further work on the message of Acts; reflection on the place of Judaism and the Jewish people in Acts; fuller engagement with Luke’s theological contribution post-Conzelmann; and a broader and deeper understanding of salvation through a Lukan lens.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Hägerland, Tobias. "Editorial Fatigue and the Existence of Q." New Testament Studies 65, no. 2 (February 22, 2019): 190–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688518000371.

Full text

Abstract:

This article challenges Mark Goodacre's contention that the distribution of editorial fatigue in Matthew and Luke points not only to Markan priority but also to Luke's dependence on Matthew. Goodacre's argument is criticised through questioning the assumptions that Matthew's handling of Q would have been analogous to his handling of Mark and to Luke's handling of Q, as well as the claim that no instances of editorial fatigue can be detected in Matthew's handling of the double tradition. The conclusion is that the argument from editorial fatigue cannot be used to establish that the existence of Q is improbable.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

STRICKLAND, MICHAEL. "The Synoptic Problem in Sixteenth-Century Protestantism." Journal of Ecclesiastical History 67, no. 1 (December 18, 2015): 82–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s002204691500158x.

Full text

Abstract:

This article examines early Protestant discussion of the historic puzzle in New Testament study known as the Synoptic Problem, which deals with the potential literary relationship between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The subject was addressed by John Calvin, pioneer Reformer, and by the early Lutheran Martin Chemnitz. Calvin made a puissant contribution by constructing the first three-column Gospel harmony. Chemnitz contributed nascent redaction-critical assessments of Matthew's use of Mark. Thus, far from simply being a concern to post-Enlightenment critics (as is often assumed), interest in the Gospel sources was present from the earliest days of the Reformation.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Butar-Butar, Heryson. "Kajian Apologetis Terhadap Kontroversi Kemanusiaan Dan Ketidakbersalahaan Yesus Kristus." Manna Rafflesia 8, no. 1 (November 1, 2021): 196–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.38091/man_raf.v8i1.176.

Full text

Abstract:

The context of understanding the humanity and innocence of Jesus gave rise a theological controversy. The reason is, the all-perfect God who became human in Jesus Christ is difficult to maintain because He is a limited figure and is considered to have made mistakes. For example Jesus' ignorance regarding the person who touched His robe (Mark 5:30-32 and Luke 8 :45), Jesus' ignorance of what will happen in the last days (Mark 13:27-32), Jesus' mistake in calling Zechariah son of Berechiah (Matthew 23:35; 2 Chronicles 24:20) and the wrong behavior of Jesus who was angry in the Temple (Matthew 21:12-16; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:15-16). The purpose of this study is to provide a biblical description in an apologetic frame as a form of a refutation of these assumptions. This study uses a qualitative method with an apologetic approach. An understanding of the person of Jesus needs to be seen comprehensively with the context that binds it. The assumptions about Jesus' guilt and ignorance are not substantially based on a comprehensive and credible interpretation.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Böttrich, Christfried. "Das lukanische Doppelwerk im Kontext frühjüdischer Literatur." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 106, no. 2 (July 31, 2015): 151–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/znw-2015-0011.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract: Among Jewish scholars, Leo Baeck was the first to refer (in 1938) to the Gospels in general as “a Jewish book among Jewish books.” This statement has some plausibility for Matthew or Mark. But could it also be true for Luke, long regarded as the hero of “Gentile Christian” theology? This paper explores this question beginning first with some problems mainly concerning terminology: Does Luke have “anti-Jewish” tendencies (as postulated by many scholars)? Of what relevance is the “parting of the ways” paradigm in recent discussion? And finally, what bearing does Christology have on the “Jewishness” of the Lukan text? A second section explores motifs common to Luke and the Jewish literature of his time, such as the form of biographical narration, the validity and function of the Torah, religious institutions and geographical constellations. The final portion of the paper attempts to locate Luke anew in his world. I argue in particular that there are good reasons to see him as a diaspora Jew present somewhere in Greece, whose Jewish tradition is inherited, but whose Hellenistic education is acquired. His writing thus reflects a form of religious literature much more complex and nuanced than simple labels can attest.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Vickery, John B. "Book Review: Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist Perspectives: Jesus Begins to Write." Christianity & Literature 42, no. 2 (March 1993): 344–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014833319304200214.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. "Book Review: Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist Perspectives: Jesus Begins to Write." Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 48, no. 1 (January 1994): 92–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002096430004800118.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Patton, Andrew J. "Greek Catenae and the “Western” Order of the Gospels." Novum Testamentum 64, no. 1 (December 13, 2021): 115–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685365-bja10012.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract The “Western” order of the gospels—Matthew–John–Luke–Mark—is found in a few important ancient codices in both the Greek and the Latin tradition. Previous attempts to identify Greek minuscule manuscripts with this sequence have been inconclusive. This article presents five Greek minuscules which feature the gospels in the Western order. These five manuscripts, along with two Greek majuscules, contain the earliest form of the catena commentary on Matthew, John, and Luke. The analysis of these catenae reveals that the sequence of their composition is reflected in the codicology of these manuscripts, as well as non-standard orders of the gospels in other catena witnesses. It is therefore the presence of the commentary which explains the adoption of the Western order in seven of the eleven known occurrences in Greek.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Mäll, Linnart. "On the concept of humanistic base texts." Sign Systems Studies 28 (December 31, 2000): 281–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/sss.2000.28.15.

Full text

Abstract:

I elaborated the concept of humanistic base texts when I was translating lndian and Chinese classical texts into Estonian. At present, I would classify as such the following works: "Bhagavadgītā", a part of Buddhist text's, "Lunyu" by Confucius and the Gospels according to Luke, Matthew and Mark, to mention only a few. This article gives a general survey of the concept, to be specified in the papers to follow.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!