Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [Synoptic-L] Luke's Great Omission

Expand Messages
  • Matson, Mark (Academic)
    David: Here is my take: I think Luke definitely chose to ignore the Markan material. This is part of his compositional strategy in which the author exercises
    Message 1 of 14 , May 17 5:37 PM
      David:

      Here is my take:

      I think Luke definitely chose to ignore the Markan material. This is part of his compositional strategy in which the author exercises quite a bit of control. And I think this indicates my overall sense of how to read Luke: he has a clear compositional concept which utilizes lots of sources, follows them closely sometimes, rearranges them other times (frequently, especially with Luke's use of Matthew's SOM material), and often makes major modifications at times. In other words, Luke has his own story to tell and is by no means a slave to Mark or Matthew. I think this becomes very apparent when we see Luke's freedom in the travel narrative (9:51-18:15)!

      In the first part of the gospel Luke does generally follow Mark, but note for instance even here his authorial choice: he rearranges and expands the sermon at Nazareth; adds some of Matthew's material from Sermon on the Mount (Sermon on the Plain), and more.

      But when Luke gets to Mark 6:46 he chooses to ignore this. Why? Well, because here Mark has Jesus go outside of Galilee proper (Tyre/Sidon, and then back by way of Decapolis (??) .. and later to Caesarea Philippi), and then has a duplex of the Feeding of 5000 in the form of the Feeding of 4000.

      Of course we will never know entirely why Luke choose to include some stuff, and exclude others. But in this case the theological program is more clear: Jesus preached to Israel (only), and it remains for the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to reach out to the Gentiles. So Luke has more deliberately bifurcated these Israel/Gentile parts of the overall heilsgeschichte.

      On a more specific issue of Luke 9:18, I guess I don't see quite the problem. Granted there is a bit of an ungainly shift from Jesus being alone, and then the disciples being with him (though the imperfect of eimi here could suggest an inceptive nature, (they came to be with him). But I don't see any real Mark here here... Mark doesn't have Jesus praying alone, does he? So I'm not sure how a mix up of pages explains that. What we have is an original Lukan transition to the "good confession" story. And remember, if Luke is uncomfortable with the Mark/Matt setting of this confession way up in Caesarea Philippi (=Paneas, a notable pagan location), he has to come up with some transition. But maybe I missed something.

      Finally, on Luke 12:1, I think we see again Luke's strong modifications. He does not just add, "which is hypocrisy", but also only refers to the leaven of the Pharisees (and note in Mark we are back to that curious passage about the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod (!!) which I had raised here a few weeks ago. ... and Luke's omission of "Herod" (or alternatively, "Saducees" in Matthew) has completely removed the frame that Mark placed on it).

      mark

      Mark A. Matson
      Milligan College
      http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
      ________________________________________
      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Inglis [davidinglis2@...]
      Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:49 PM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] Luke's Great Omission

      Did aLk deliberately omit a large portion of Mk, or did he have a damaged copy of Mk that did not include a large
      portion of the text? It is increasingly looking to me that the latter is by far the more likely. Earlier this year I
      posted the following on another list:

      I've just created a synoptic parallel that covers the whole of Lk 9, and based on this it definitely seems to me that Lk
      has a discontinuity in the middle of v. 9:18, corresponding roughly to Mk 6:46 and 8:27b:

      "And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, . . his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say
      the people that I am?" that is easily explained by pages missing from Mk.

      However, I don't think that's the end of the story, because I see way more differences between Mk 6:47-8:27a and Mt
      14:23b-16:12 than I expected. I also suspect that as well as aLk's copy of Mk having a big chunk missing, I think that
      various pages either side of the gap were out or order. However, that awaits a more detailed analysis.

      Since then I've been looking in more detail at some of this issue, and it looks to me as though aLk did actually have
      some fragments of the text of the Great Omission, and, not knowing where they were supposed to go, used them as the
      basis of the beginning of Lk 12:

      Lk 12:1a In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they
      trode one upon another,

      Why is this here? The reference to the multitude has nothing to do with what comes next, especially when it appears that
      Jesus then ignores the multitude, and speaks instead to just his disciples. However, the Great Omission contains several
      references to large numbers of people, which at first sight do not appear to be present in Lk:

      Mk 6:45 - Even if aLk had this as a separate fragment it is unlikely to be the source of Lk 12:1a, as it refers to
      people leaving. Also, it would seem to be easily connected with Mk 6:44, and hence used to follow on from Lk 9:17.

      Mk 8:1-2 - The multitudes are referred to twice. If aLk only had a small piece of Mk containing either of both of these
      references it would be hard know what to do with it, apart from simply adding a reference to the number of people and
      moving on. However, even so, the detail about the people treading on one another seems to be an added Lukan detail.

      Lk 12:1b he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees,

      This appears to be an obvious parallel to Mk 8:15b. Although Mt 16:6b is also a parallel, it seems very unlikely that
      aLk knew this parallel in Mt, because otherwise he would been able to include the whole 'leaven' passage instead of just
      this small fragment.

      Lk 12:1c which is hypocrisy.

      This text appears nowhere in either Mk or Mt. Also, aLk appears not to know the end of either Mk 8:15 or Mt 16:6. It
      would therefore appear that he finished off the saying by reference to the fact that the Pharisees are often referred to
      as hypocrites.

      Lk 12:2 For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.

      Here aLk continues with text from Mt.

      I'd be interested in comments on whether this seems to be a workable hypothesis, or whether there are better sources for
      Lk 12:1.

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ------------------------------------

      Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links



      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic On: The Great Omission From: Bruce David Inglis had shared his sense that the Great Omission in Luke was due to a defective Vorlage. Mark Matson
      Message 2 of 14 , May 18 12:36 AM
        To: Synoptic
        On: The Great Omission
        From: Bruce

        David Inglis had shared his sense that the Great Omission in Luke was due to
        a defective Vorlage.

        Mark Matson commented: I think Luke definitely chose to ignore the Markan
        material.

        As far as I know, that deserves to be called the universal consensus on the
        matter. That consensus seems to me to raise these questions:

        1. Luke, at least in the form we have him, seems to favor the Gentile
        Mission; he has Jesus appoint a second Apostolic team, The Seventy, to go
        into "Samaria" (Luke's symbol for non-Jewish territory; compare the Parable
        of the Good Samaritan). The Feeding of the 4000 is Mark's symbolic way of
        bringing in the Gentile Mission, as fully on a par with the Mission to the
        Jews (symbolized by the Feeding of the 5000), and Mark's Jesus, speaking for
        Mark, is at pains to explain to us (as represented in Mark by the disciples)
        who may be slow to get the symbolism, exactly how the symbolism works. So
        there is no reasonable doubt about what the Feeding of the 4000 is doing in
        Mark. Luke, as usually understood, ought then to have had no resistance to
        this part of Mark, whereas it is easy to see why he omitted the part where
        Jesus's family and friends think Jesus is crazy, and make a move to put him
        away. What then is the authorial reason for this portion of the omission?
        Dublettenfurcht? But then why the rest of the Omission, and be it noted that
        Luke, not least in his 70 paralleling the 12, has Dubletten elsewhere?

        2. Luke's omissions from Mark are interesting, but nowhere else in Luke (or
        in Matthew) is there so large and so consecutive an omission. Why this
        anomaly, which goes against Luke's practice elsewhere?

        3. If we follow the text of Mark along with that of Luke, at the point
        leading up to the beginning of the Omission, and if when we come to that
        point we mark it with a pencil, we find that our pencilmark in the supposed
        Vorlage falls in the middle of a sentence. So also if we follow the text of
        Mark until Luke again picks up the Markan story. That makes two pencilmarks.
        Explanations for Luke's omission of one pericope certainly abound, and there
        may be some for Luke's omission of a series or pericopes (though I don't
        recall seeing any). But in no other case, whether of omission or inclusion,
        does Luke's procedure produce, or imply, ragged pericope edges. Why here,
        since it conspicuously goes against Luke's practice elsewhere?

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
      • Bob Schacht
        ... I object to this characterization of Samaria. Rather than being a symbol of Gentiles (which Samaritans were not), I think it symbolizes Luke s message that
        Message 3 of 14 , May 18 7:41 AM
          At 12:36 AM 5/18/2012, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
          >1. Luke, at least in the form we have him, seems to favor the Gentile
          >Mission; he has Jesus appoint a second Apostolic team, The Seventy, to go
          >into "Samaria" (Luke's symbol for non-Jewish territory; compare the Parable
          >of the Good Samaritan).

          I object to this characterization of Samaria. Rather than being a
          symbol of Gentiles (which Samaritans were not), I think it symbolizes
          Luke's message that Jesus' message was for all Jews-- not just the
          orthodox Judean Jews, or the local parochial Galilean Jews, but all of them.

          >The Feeding of the 4000 is Mark's symbolic way of
          >bringing in the Gentile Mission, as fully on a par with the Mission to the
          >Jews (symbolized by the Feeding of the 5000), and Mark's Jesus, speaking for
          >Mark, is at pains to explain to us (as represented in Mark by the disciples)
          >who may be slow to get the symbolism, exactly how the symbolism works. So
          >there is no reasonable doubt about what the Feeding of the 4000 is doing in
          >Mark. ...

          I object to these characterizations, as well. The inclusion of the
          Gentiles in Luke is shown primarily by Luke 2:32 and the references
          to Tyre & Sidon in Luke 6:17 (Sermon on the Plain) and the Woes in
          Luke 10:13-14, as well as Mark's story of the Syrophoenician woman.

          The Feeding stories, IMHO, are a message that Jesus ministry was for
          all Jews, including the hoi polloi, not just a select few.

          Bob Schacht
          Northern Arizona University



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic (GPG) In Response To: Bob Schacht On: Samaritans and Gentiles From: Bruce I had suggested (without claiming entire originality for it, since both
          Message 4 of 14 , May 18 9:53 AM
            To: Synoptic (GPG)
            In Response To: Bob Schacht
            On: Samaritans and Gentiles
            From: Bruce

            I had suggested (without claiming entire originality for it, since both
            Creed and Goulder, inter alia, have noted the symbolism of 70, echoing
            Genesis, as meaning the nations of the world; this is a variant on Mark's 7
            baskets, which is how Mark signals the meaning he intends to be perceived in
            the Feeding of the 4000), that the Samaritans in Luke symbolize the
            Gentiles, and that the appointment of the 70 is meant to imply Jesus's
            recognition, and indeed inauguration, of the Gentile Mission.

            Bob: I object to this characterization of Samaria. Rather than being a
            symbol of Gentiles (which Samaritans were not), I think it symbolizes Luke's
            message that Jesus' message was for all Jews-- not just the orthodox Judean
            Jews, or the local parochial Galilean Jews, but all of them.

            Bruce: In which case, it seems that Luke's appointing of a new set of 70
            Apostles (and splitting Mark's instructions to the 12 in half, to furnish
            them) is a bit of narrative overkill. The symbolic interpretation seems the
            more likely since no Samaritans are actually visited, or preached to, and no
            specifically Samaritan beliefs are noted (compare John, where the
            differences between Samaritans and Jews are part of the conversation between
            Jesus and the locals). We might also consider other instances in Luke, such
            as the Healing of the Ten Lepers, where Jesus says of the only one - a
            Samaritan - who returned to thank him, "Was no one found to return and give
            praise to God except this foreigner?" (Lk 17:18). I find it easier to
            construe "foreigner" as "foreigner," than as either a Jew or a heretical Jew
            (which seems to have been the status of literal historical Samaritans).

            On the prior case of Mark's 4000, . . .

            Bob: I object to these characterizations, as well. The inclusion of the
            Gentiles in Luke is shown primarily by Luke 2:32 and the references to Tyre
            & Sidon in Luke 6:17 (Sermon on the Plain) and the Woes in Luke 10:13-14, as
            well as Mark's story of the Syrophoenician woman.

            Bruce: Lk 2:32 is an Isaiah quote from Mary's Magnificat; it has nothing
            biographically to do with Jesus. As for Lk 6:17 (the crowd from Judaea,
            Jerusalem, and the coastal area of Tyre and Sidon), what is to prevent them
            from being any less Jewish than the crowds who came to hear John the
            Baptist? There were Jews as far away as Rome, and surely the apostolic
            effort outside Palestine had Jews, not the general population, of those
            places as their first, and indeed their originally intended, audience. The
            inclusion of Gentiles most likely began as an inadvertent, unlooked-for, and
            at first unwelcome side effect of preaching to Diaspora Jews. As for the
            cursing of three Galilean towns in Lk 10:13f, that might be thought to give
            preference to the Jerusalem Mission over the Galilean one, especially since
            Luke, like Matthew (who has an exactly parallel curse), was committed to the
            Jerusalem-centrist view of Christian history (he totally eliminates the hint
            of a Jesus appearance in Galilee, and transfers it to Jerusalem). But does
            that curse amount to a blessing on Gentiles? If I curse my neighbor on the
            left, is this evidence of love for my neighbor on the right?

            If these were all the evidence for Luke's acceptance, or even his awareness,
            of the Gentile Mission, it seems to me that it would be very hard to prove
            Luke's knowledge or approval of the Gentile Mission. No?

            And yet if conventional wisdom holds, the same Luke who wrote this
            Gentile-denying or at any rate Gentile-ignoring Gospel also personally
            accompanied Paul on what Paul himself was pleased to call a mission to the
            Gentiles. Surely there is a conundrum here, and so far, I prefer my solution
            to any alternative so far on offer.

            ----------

            The Gentile mission was something which arose after the lifetime of Jesus.
            On that, perhaps agreement is possible. Given that fact, if we may concede
            that it is a fact, it was awkward for any Gospel writer to portray Jesus as
            himself preaching, or sending preachers, among the Gentiles. A manifest
            anachronism would have been involved. So if Jesus's approval of the
            intentional conversion of Gentiles was to be portrayed, it could only have
            been in symbolic terms. I think that symbolic terms were in fact used, by
            both Mark and Luke. The only other course was to portray the Mission to the
            Gentiles as something not part of Jesus's plan, but as belonging exclusively
            to the post-Jesus period. In the eyes of probable readers, it seems to me
            that this would tend to render the Mission to the Gentiles invalid, as
            departing from the practice and the approval of Jesus. It was then a
            second-best rhetorical strategy. I think the Evangelists followed what they
            thought was a first-best strategy.

            In all religions, including the Buddhist, the tendency is to portray later
            innovations (in the case of Buddhism, such things as the cult of relics and
            pilgrimages to sacred sites and the establishment of fully residential
            monasticism) as occurring in the lifetime of the founder, or at any rate as
            having somehow received his explicit approval. I suggest that in these
            symbolisms of Mark and Luke, we are seeing this universal tendency also at
            work: retrojecting into the time of Jesus developments that actually came
            afterward.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • David Mealand
            Not too sure about some of the points made in this exchange Isn t Mark s second feeding set in the Decapolis? (i.e. mainly Gentile territory containing Greek
            Message 5 of 14 , May 19 3:00 AM
              Not too sure about some of the points made
              in this exchange

              Isn't Mark's second feeding set in the Decapolis?
              (i.e. mainly Gentile territory containing Greek cities,
              and pro-Roman in outlook, separated off from Hasmonean
              domains by Pompey, and again later by Augustus after
              Herod's death).

              Wasn't the main charge laid against Samaritans
              one of ethnicity, that their ancestors had
              inter-married with non-Israelites - they didn't
              originally belong to Judah, and orthodoxy and heresy
              are alien categories imported from the world of
              the interpreter.

              It is actually quite hard to keep reminding oneself
              to go back to the 1st century when reading these texts

              David M.




              ---------
              David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


              --
              The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
              Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
            • Matson, Mark (Academic)
              David Mealand wrote: Not too sure about some of the points made in this exchange Isn t Mark s second feeding set in the Decapolis? (i.e. mainly Gentile
              Message 6 of 14 , May 19 10:46 AM
                David Mealand wrote:

                Not too sure about some of the points made
                in this exchange

                Isn't Mark's second feeding set in the Decapolis?
                (i.e. mainly Gentile territory containing Greek cities,
                and pro-Roman in outlook, separated off from Hasmonean
                domains by Pompey, and again later by Augustus after
                Herod's death).

                Mark: Yes, possibly. Mark certainly has Jesus going to Gentile area. And if the feeding of 4000 is logically following the geographical itinerary preceding (i.e. Mark 7:31-37) which goes through region of Decapolis, yes. But then Mark is not always careful. But this is very likely. And hence a good reason for Luke to exclude.

                Wasn't the main charge laid against Samaritans
                one of ethnicity, that their ancestors had
                inter-married with non-Israelites - they didn't
                originally belong to Judah, and orthodoxy and heresy
                are alien categories imported from the world of
                the interpreter.

                Mark: I am not as sure of the idea of considering Samaritans as "gentiles". That was certainly one aspect maintained by Judeans. But for instance if we follow the internal logic of, say, John 4 -- there is the idea of "cousins" more than outsiders. Jesus maintains that Judeans are the proper form of Yahweh religion (not Gerizim), and yet the tone is of insiders. Similarly in the logical expansion of Acts, Phillips evangelization in Samaria is not the same as Peter's later "full-blown" engagement with Cornelius (now full engagement with Gentiles).

                Mark A. Matson
                Milligan College
                http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
              • ernestpennells
                I can t resist this discussion. Whereas the mission of seventy(two) taken as a symbol of Gentile mission makes it a retrospective issue from a later era, the
                Message 7 of 14 , May 19 3:46 PM
                  I can't resist this discussion.
                  Whereas the mission of seventy(two) taken as a symbol of Gentile mission makes it a retrospective issue from a later era, the option of accepting it as referring to the number of the Sanhedrin gives it direct relevance to Jesus and his disciples. They were, after all, heading for Jerusalem, and Luke lays heavy emphasis upon this throughout his journeying motif.

                  Ernie Pennells
                  Victoria BC
                • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                  Ernie: As I understand it, the reason that the mission of the 70/72 is taken as anticipating a Gentile mission comes from the symbolism of number 72.... so the
                  Message 8 of 14 , May 20 9:17 AM
                    Ernie:

                    As I understand it, the reason that the mission of the 70/72 is taken as anticipating a Gentile mission comes from the symbolism of number 72.... so the number of nations in Gen. 10 is 72, and in 3 Enoch the number of princes of the world and languages is 72. So this number would refer to the larger gentile world. But, as I allueded to in a former post, this Gentile reference is future, it is anticipation, since in Luke's narrative construction, Jesus deliberately does not go into Gentile territory -- that awaits the coming of the Spirit and the work of the church in Acts (progressive movement, first to Samarians and then to Gentiles).

                    If I understand your point, though, you maintain this would refer to the Sanhedrin. I certainly agree that the central narrative scheme from 9:51 on is the journey to Jerusalem. And whatever symbolism is in the 70/72 it is not made clear in the narrative, and your connecting it to Jerusalem is potentially attractive. But I have two concerns:

                    1. The Great Sanhedrin in rabbinic literature is 71, not 70 or 72, I think. That is a pretty specific number.

                    2. The Great Sanhedrin itself is a pretty narrowly specific concept that might never have actually existed. At any rate, the actual assembly of Jewish leaders (synedrion is only found once in Luke at 22:66, and is actually a downplayed theme in Luke ..notice that downgrades the nighttime trial to an informal hearing: Luke has no parallel to Mk 14:55) would seem to be only smaller group.

                    So while this is tempting, I wonder if this would really be seen as the reference in Luke 10?

                    Mark A. Matson
                    Milligan College
                    http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
                    ________________________________________
                    Ernie Pennels wrote:

                    I can't resist this discussion.
                    Whereas the mission of seventy(two) taken as a symbol of Gentile mission makes it a retrospective issue from a later era, the option of accepting it as referring to the number of the Sanhedrin gives it direct relevance to Jesus and his disciples. They were, after all, heading for Jerusalem, and Luke lays heavy emphasis upon this throughout his journeying motif.
                    -------------------------------------------------------------
                  • ernestpennells
                    Thank you, Mark. I find the conclusion that seventy is a symbolic reference to Gentiles unconvincing. Unpacking the symbolism: Seventy elders accompanied
                    Message 9 of 14 , May 20 4:28 PM
                      Thank you, Mark. I find the conclusion that seventy is a symbolic reference to Gentiles unconvincing.

                      Unpacking the symbolism:

                      Seventy elders accompanied Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 24.1,9).

                      Sinai was promptly followed by failure with the golden calf. Transfiguration was promptly followed by the disciples' failure with a convulsive boy. Jesus' protest echoes Moses' protest (Num. 11.11). "What an unbelieving and perverse generation!" (Lk. 9.41).

                      Jesus' appointment of seventy echoes the appointment of seventy elders to share the spirit bestowed on Moses (Num 11.16,24f.). Luke gives an ecstatic account of their mission (they shared the spirit of their Lord).

                      These links with Sinai are compelling.

                      Luke says that Moses and Elijah talked about Jesus' destiny in Jerusalem (Lk. 9.31).

                      Emphasis: "Jesus set his face resolutely toward Jerusalem" (Lk. 9.51), with recurrent reminders en route (Lk. 9.53; 13.32f; 17.11; 18.31ff; 19.11,28).

                      En route Jesus laments: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... ... your house is forsaken." (Lk.13.34f)

                      Upon setting foot in the Roman Province of Judaea, Jesus befriends Zacchaeus (an Agent of the Roman Governor). Jesus had previously silenced Peter's declaration of Messiah (Lk. 9.21). Ergo: this march on Jerusalem is not a march against Roman occupation.

                      Soon after arriving in Jerusalem Jesus publicly denounces the temple authorities as wicked husbandmen. They recognised his parable as directed against them (Lk. 20.19).

                      Moses – Sinai – seventy, and a heavy emphasis on target Jerusalem to denounce the presiding priesthood all say rulers (Sanhedrin) to me.

                      There are numerous references to ruling councils and representative bodies in ancient texts: War, Ant, Life, mSanh, tSuk, Boule, M.Hag, mZeb, mYad, Zebahim, Yadaim. The specific number varies (70,71,72).

                      Ernie
                    • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                      Thanks Ernie for the great response. I don t know if I find the gentile symbolism all that much either... what I was citing was the commonly cited reasons
                      Message 10 of 14 , May 20 5:38 PM
                        Thanks Ernie for the great response. I don't know if I find the "gentile" symbolism all that much either... what I was citing was the "commonly cited" reasons for seeing it as that reference.

                        I am still not personally convinced, though, that 70/72 refers to the Sanhedrin, despite some variation in numbers in earlier sources. It just doesn't fit with the size of the council imagined in the gospels (which might well have been ad hoc groups anyway).

                        But I am intrigued by your references to the Sinai traditions... hadn't thought about that. That would be a reasonable intertextual reference / allusion that would fit with Luke.

                        mark
                        Mark A. Matson
                        Milligan College
                        http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
                        ________________________________________
                        Ernest Pennells wrote:

                        Thank you, Mark. I find the conclusion that seventy is a symbolic reference to Gentiles unconvincing.

                        Unpacking the symbolism:

                        Seventy elders accompanied Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 24.1,9).

                        Sinai was promptly followed by failure with the golden calf. Transfiguration was promptly followed by the disciples' failure with a convulsive boy. Jesus' protest echoes Moses' protest (Num. 11.11). "What an unbelieving and perverse generation!" (Lk. 9.41).

                        Jesus' appointment of seventy echoes the appointment of seventy elders to share the spirit bestowed on Moses (Num 11.16,24f.). Luke gives an ecstatic account of their mission (they shared the spirit of their Lord).

                        These links with Sinai are compelling.

                        Luke says that Moses and Elijah talked about Jesus' destiny in Jerusalem (Lk. 9.31).

                        Emphasis: "Jesus set his face resolutely toward Jerusalem" (Lk. 9.51), with recurrent reminders en route (Lk. 9.53; 13.32f; 17.11; 18.31ff; 19.11,28).

                        En route Jesus laments: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... ... your house is forsaken." (Lk.13.34f)

                        Upon setting foot in the Roman Province of Judaea, Jesus befriends Zacchaeus (an Agent of the Roman Governor). Jesus had previously silenced Peter's declaration of Messiah (Lk. 9.21). Ergo: this march on Jerusalem is not a march against Roman occupation.

                        Soon after arriving in Jerusalem Jesus publicly denounces the temple authorities as wicked husbandmen. They recognised his parable as directed against them (Lk. 20.19).

                        Moses – Sinai – seventy, and a heavy emphasis on target Jerusalem to denounce the presiding priesthood all say rulers (Sanhedrin) to me.

                        There are numerous references to ruling councils and representative bodies in ancient texts: War, Ant, Life, mSanh, tSuk, Boule, M.Hag, mZeb, mYad, Zebahim, Yadaim. The specific number varies (70,71,72).
                      • ernestpennells
                        On the numbers game: Luke and Sinai traditions consistently mention seventy. However, when Moses and the seventy present themselves at the Tabernacle, they
                        Message 11 of 14 , May 21 6:42 AM
                          On the numbers game:

                          Luke and Sinai traditions consistently mention seventy. However, when Moses and the seventy present themselves at the Tabernacle, they total seventy-one. Likewise, Jesus plus his seventy. Josephus also mentions provision for alleged miscreants to be brought before him and seventy he appointed.

                          The question arises as to whether the number cited in other ancient texts includes or excludes the HP or other figurehead.

                          The seventy(-two) variant arises from a different number count in LXX and MT of the list of nations in Genesis. The number is not actually stated there.

                          Seventy-two is a multiple of twelve, possibly suggesting even handed treatment in a tribal society.

                          Should we expect mathematical precision in ancient texts? (Or modern ones, come to that).

                          Ernie Pennells
                          Victoria BC
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.