Over the past few weeks Michael Kok has been confronting some of Brant Pitre's grand(ios)er claims on New Testament authorship. The dispute has entered the Carnival, thence PaleoJudaica. Kok seems to be expounding on his 2022 paper (pdf) which concerns Justin's use of "Luke".
We all agree Justin cited lore which we now find in the Lucan corpus. Kok has been treating Pitre with respect. Kok holds Mark and Matthew to be very early, even a memoir of apostolic times; I agree with that assessment of Mark, by the way. But Kok cannot find where Justin, if aware of the Lucan volumes, was aware of their authorship as by Luke. Marcion was similarly unaware.
If I may interject... said corpus had sources too. Those now claiming that Luke and Matthew used a Quelle, rather than that Luke just used Matthew; might also suspect that Justin used "L" and not Luke. Perhaps Kok follows Goodacre (and Pitre) that Luke used Matthew...? If so, Kok would have a bias against speculations on lost sources. I tend to agree with Pitre on this much as well.
But I question whether Luke's sources be as lost as some think.
No comments:
Post a Comment