Re: [XTalk] Why Luke?
- Hi Ernie,
Back for a bit before I have to run out again. A few words about some of
>From: "Linda & Ernest Pennells" <pennells@...>First, a confession: I am a
>source-criticism sceptic.I'm not... neither for TANAK nor the NT writings. These Hebrew/Jewish folks
had a long, fine tradition of taking old texts and editting them and making
something new out of old shards. This study helps show such as creativity,
development and change in traditions andt his in turn can be played off of
what we can figure out about different historical eras. Plus, as a general
comment, these folks loved to haggle in their sacred writings! We are
always dealing with theoretical constructs, but then even the texts we have
in our modern Bibles are theoretical constructs. As far as I'm concerned
thinking through these issues is critical to understanding the theological
nature of the texts and traditions and for historical inquiry. To the
Torah. "J's" Moses isn't "E's" Moses. We are the richer for understanding
J, E, D and P and the extant Torah portrait. And so for understanding the
Jesus of the many Gospels and the differences in the various layers of those
Gospels that we can detect. So, we'll have to disagree about this and its
>Why - with Jerusalem and its temple in ruins - would the author strain toI hope you'll read my notes to Vincent, yesterday and Mike this a.m.
>show that Jesus, the apostles and Paul, were loyal devotees of a temple
>that YHWH had abandoned and Rome destroyed, as Jesus had prophesied?
Regarding this specific issue, as I noted to Mike, this just emphasizes my
point. Jesus is shown in Luke weeping and saying "Would that you knew this
day the things that make for peace." This is one piece of distinguishing
that Jesus was part and parcel of an ancient religion and not a
superstition, and yet at the same time a guy who really, really stood for
peace and good order.
>Again... Roman citizen Paul, exercizing his rights, was someone associated
>Why - decades after Paul was dead and gone - would a follower of the risen
>Christ, who reveals considerable independence from Paul's own thought,
>find it relevant to devote five times as much space to Paul's legal
>entanglement than to Jesus' "trial"?
and murderously so with the those ultimately troublesome Jerusalem leaders.
But Jesus from heaven changed him into a peaceful man sharing a spiritual
message. He was hounded for it, brave in the face of many torments, yet
***never suggested violence*** but rather exercized his Roman rights and is
shown at the last, alive (not a martyr for a cause) preaching the spiritual,
peace KOG and Jesus. In the realization that Trajan had to deal with Jewish
revolts at the end of his reign... in the reality that Hadrian had been the
Syrian legate and knew the importance of Palestine as a buffer against the
Parthians and that he knew how troublesome Jerusalem Jews could be, I take
it that in the aftermath of this that Luke was trying to show that these
Christians weren't "superstitious troublemakers," but rather rooted in an
acceptable ancient religion and really "the good guys." And all that
trouble to get Paul alive and safely in Rome. Well, this prisoner fellow,
even in chains, wasn't instigating secret meetings, boasting about "the end
of the Roman order," but even in chains peaceful.
>Records and a good imagination to make up a really cool story to bring this
>How would the author be well informed about local administrative and legal
>process, and office holders, at diverse locations scattered around the
>eastern Mediterranean half a century earlier?
I hope this helps get to some of the issues.
(Karel, must run again, but I'll get to your note, probably tomorrow.)