A SOURCE CRITICAL REASSESSMENT OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE: WAS CANONICAL MARK REALLY LUKE'S SOURCE? A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Wycliffe College and the Biblical Department of the Toronto School of Theology in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's College By Kari Pekka Tolppanen Toronto 2009 © Kari P. Tolppanen Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-53123-5 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-53123-5 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission. In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these. While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis. 1*1 Canada A Source Critical Reassessment of the Gospel of Luke: Was Canonical Mark Really Luke's Source? Ph.D., 2009 Kari Pekka Tolppanen Biblical Department University of St. Michael's College ABSTRACT The author argues that Luke did not derive his triple tradition material from canonical Mark. He bases his thesis on three major observations: First, Luke clearly emphasizes certain theological themes in his double work, but interestingly these themes are sometimes missing in Luke while present in Markan parallel pericopes. The author discusses the following themes in detail: prayer, the Holy Spirit, power/mighty works, repentance, ethnos, salvation, angels, Jesus as the King, and the kingdom of God. Second, the Lukan and Markan non-Passion sections resemble each other much more closely at both macro and micro levels than the Lukan and Markan Passion-Resurrection sections do. There is no comprehensive theological or grammatical explanation for this change of tone. The author attempts to demonstrate the unlikelihood, by comparing the Lukan Passion- Resurrection section with his non-Passion section, that Luke drew these sections from an originally unified source, and, by detailed analysis of the Passion-Resurrection section, that Luke drew it from canonical Mark. Third, great variation in verbatim agreement levels between the Lukan and Markan parallel passages run against the human tendency towards consistency in behavior and editorial practice. This fact may suggest that Luke did not derive his triple tradition material from canonical Mark, copy-editing it inconsistently. The author's study of some Greco-Roman and Jewish authors ii Ill shows that, in general, they were very consistent copyist-editors, either paraphrasing their source texts almost entirely or copying them almost word for word. In a few ancient works, in which variation in verbatim agreement most resemble Luke, another theory rather than the direct literary dependency one may better explain the relationship between two works. In the conclusion, the author suggest that Luke derived his triple tradition material not from canonical Mark but from either a single Non-Canonical Markan Source/Tradition (NCMS/T) or two NCMS/Ts, which Luke used consistently. Canonical Mark and a NCMS/T(s) had the same origin but different development histories, developing in partly different directions probably due to the interaction of orality and literacy. Luke's reliance on aNCMS/T(s) rather than on canonical Mark may be the reason for the differences mentioned above. IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS "Do not try to do it all at once. Take it one bite at a time." This advice was given by Larry J. Perkins, my professor at the ACTS Seminaries of Trinity Western University, when I told him of my intentions and fears about doing a Ph.D. in Theology. These words of wisdom have carried me along to this day. In addition to God, who has called me into his kingdom, and Dr. Perkins for his wise advice, I also owe a great debt to the following persons: First, it has been my great privilege to have Professor John S. Kloppenborg (University of Toronto) as my dissertation supervisor. The better I have come to know him, the more I have admired the breadth of his knowledge and wisdom He has carefully read every page of my dissertation and helped me to improve my thesis by his constructive criticism. Second, I am also grateful to the member of my examination committee, Professors Terence L. Donaldson (Wycliffe College), L. Ann Jervis (Wycliffe College), John S. Kloppenborg (University of Toronto), Scott Lewis (Regis College), and Mark Goodacre (external; Duke University). Third, I owe a very special word of thanks to Ainsley Sommer, proofreader of my dissertation, who has patiently corrected my English sentences free of charge. Finally, I express my deepest gratitude to my wife Arja for her sacrificial love and support. Without her constant encouragement I would have never been able to finish this project. Thanks also to our daughter, Susanna, and son, Sakari, my parents Hilkka and Seppo, and my friends Ben, Hannu, Jason, Jouni, and Leo who have always stood my side and encouraged me to continue when I have been tempted to give up. It is to them that this work is dedicated. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Acknowledgments iv Abbreviations ix 1 Introduction: 1 The Synoptic Problem 1 Suggested Solutions to the Synoptic Problem and Critique of Them 3 Proposal 10 2 Lukan Thematic Omissions: 15 Introduction 15 Luke's Path to Becoming a Theologian 15 Luke's Thematic Emphases 17 The Overall Theme of Luke-Acts: The Plan of God 17 Various Emphatic Aspects of the Overall Theme 19 Inconsistencies in Luke's Use of Thematic Material Present in Mark 22 Prayer 23 Introduction 23 Analyses of the Pericopes 29 Aland §39 (Luke 4:42-43; Mark 1:35-38) 29 Aland §147 (Mark 6:45-52) and 'the Great Omission' 34 Aland §§347-348 (Luke 23:44-48, 49; Mark 15:33-39, 40-41) 44 Aland §163 (Luke 9:37-43a; Mark 9:14-29) 49 Aland §275 (Mark 11:20-26) 52 Aland §290 (Luke 21:20-24; Mark 13:14-20) 55 The Holy Spirit 61 Introduction 61 Analyses of the Pericopes 62 Aland §283 (Luke 20:41-44; Mark 12:35-37a) 62 Aland §289 (Luke 21:12-19; Mark 13:9-13) 63 Power /Mighty Works 66 Introduction 66 Analyses of the Pericopes 68 Aland §143 (Luke 9:7-9; Mark 6:14-16) 68 Aland §167 (Luke 9:49-50; Mark 9:38-41) 70 Aland §281 (Luke 20:27-40; Mark 12:18-27) 71 Repentance 73 Introduction 73 Analyses of the Pericopes 74 Aland §§30, 32 (Luke 4:14-15; Mark 1:14-15) 74 Aland §142 (Luke 9:1-6; Mark 6:6b-13) 76 Ethnos 81 Introduction 81 VI Analyses of the Pericopes 82 Aland §273 (Luke 19:45-46; Mark 11:15-17) 82 Aland §289 (Luke 21:12-19; Mark 13:9-13) 85 Salvation 88 Introduction 88 Analyses of the Pericopes 89 Aland §289 (Luke 21:12-19; Mark 13:9-13) 89 Angels 90 Introduction 90 Analyses of the Pericopes 91 Aland §20 (Luke 4:1-13; Mark 1:12-13) 91 Aland §292 (Luke 21:25-28; Mark 13:24-27) 94 Aland §293 (Luke 21:29-33; Mark 13:28-32) 96 Jesus as the King 98 Introduction 98 Analyses of the Pericopes 99 Aland §339 (Luke 23:17-23; Mark 15:6-14) 99 Aland §342 (Mark 15:16-20a) 103 Aland §345 (Luke 23:35-38; Mark 15:27-32a) 105 The Kingdom of God ./.. 107 Introduction ./ 107 Analyses of the Pericopes 109 Aland§32(Luke4:14b-15;Markl:14b-15) 109 Aland §126 (Mark 4:26-29) 112 Aland §168 (Mark 9:42-50)/§229 (Luke 17:l-3a) 113 Aland §182 (Luke 10:25-28) / Aland §282 (Mark 12:28-34) 117 Conclusion 121 3 Dissimilarities between the Lukan and Markan Passion-Resurrection Narratives: 123 Introduction 123 Previous Approaches to the Problem 130 Luke Used a Single Written Source in the Passion-Resurrection Narrative 131 The Source Was Mark 131 The Source Was Non-Markan 132 Luke Combined Sources in the Passion-Resurrection Narrative 134 The Combination of Mark and Proto-Luke 134 The Combination of Mark and a Non-Markan Source(s) or Tradition(s) 142 Exegetical Analyses 144 Aland §305 (Luke 22:1-2; Mark 14:1-2) 144 Aland §306 (Luke 7:36-50; Mark 14:3-9) 147 Aland §307 (Luke 22:3-6; Mark 14:10-11) 152 Aland§308 (Luke 22:7-14; Mark 14:12-17) 156 Aland §311 (Luke 22:15-20; Mark 14:22-25) 159 Aland §312 (Luke 22:21-23; Mark 14:18-21) 163 Aland§313 (Luke 22:24-30; Mark 10:41-45) 167 vu Aland