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

Re: [XTalk] BNTC part 2

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Jacob, Because when a skilful author plans the first edition of a book, he or she will ensure that it is well organized and impressive. In the case of the
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 6 11:53 AM
      Jacob Knee wrote:

      > .. A principal reason to think that the infancy narratives are secondary -
      > is, I guess, stylistic and theological discontinuities with the rest of
      > Luke. But if Luke (or some other) was prepared to insert them at a later
      > date (possibly very shortly after the production of the 'first edition') -
      > then why should we think that they weren't part of the Luke's Gospel from
      > the very statrt. At some point Luke (or someone else) was content to let the
      > discontinuities exist - why not from the start?

      Jacob,

      Because when a skilful author plans the first edition of a book, he or she
      will ensure that it is well organized and impressive. In the case of the
      first edition of Luke, the formal historical setting of 3:1 ff. followed
      naturally after the formal preface of 1:1-4. When Luke was later convinced
      of the need to add the birth stories, the easiest way was to leave the
      preface and formal historical setting unchanged, and insert the birth
      stories between them. Too bad that it somewhat spoilt his introduction.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Jacob Knee
      Ehrman s arguments for the originality of the Ps 2.7 text at Luke 3.22 are in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture p.62-67. As part of his argument there
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 6 12:30 PM
        Ehrman's arguments for the originality of the Ps 2.7 text at Luke 3.22 are
        in 'The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture' p.62-67.

        As part of his argument there (and his lecture at BNTC) Ehrman states his
        view that it is 'a dubious premise that Luke [was] (logically) consistent in
        his use of christological titles and conceptions'(p64). He gives examples

        1. Luke's depiction of Jesus as Messiah.
        Jesus was born Christ (2.11), become Christ at baptism (Acts 10.37-38),
        became Christ at resurrection (Acts 2.36)

        2. Luke's depiction of Jesus as Lord
        Jesus is born Lord (2.11), is Lord while living (10.11), became Lord at
        resurrection (Acts 2.36)

        3. Son of God
        Jesus is born Son of God (1.32-35), Jesus descended Son of God according to
        genealogy (3.23-38), declared Son of God while living (eg 8.28), became Son
        of God at resurrection (Acts 13.33)

        He concludes 'This kind of titular ambiguity does not inspire confidence in
        claims that certain readings cannot be Lukan because they stand in tension
        with Luke's use of christological titles elsewhere'.

        If he is right about this - then it surely weakens his case that the infancy
        narratives weren't part of the first edition because they contrast with the
        rest of Luke.

        If he is not right about it - then it slightly weakens his case for the
        authenticity of the variant reading of 3.22 - especially if his hypothesis
        about the original edition of Luke lacking ch 1 - 2 is wrong.

        As it is I think his case for the variant reading at Luke 3.22 is very
        strong. However his argument about ch 1 - 2 is IMO much weaker and seems to
        require Luke to be consistent in a way that Ehrman himself has persuasively
        argued against.

        Best wishes,
        Jacob



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Ron Price [mailto:ron.price@...]
        Sent: 06 September 2004 19:54
        To: Crosstalk elist
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] BNTC part 2

        Jacob Knee wrote:

        > .. A principal reason to think that the infancy narratives are
        > secondary - is, I guess, stylistic and theological discontinuities
        > with the rest of Luke. But if Luke (or some other) was prepared to
        > insert them at a later date (possibly very shortly after the
        > production of the 'first edition') - then why should we think that
        > they weren't part of the Luke's Gospel from the very statrt. At some
        > point Luke (or someone else) was content to let the discontinuities exist
        - why not from the start?

        Jacob,

        Because when a skilful author plans the first edition of a book, he or she
        will ensure that it is well organized and impressive. In the case of the
        first edition of Luke, the formal historical setting of 3:1 ff. followed
        naturally after the formal preface of 1:1-4. When Luke was later convinced
        of the need to add the birth stories, the easiest way was to leave the
        preface and formal historical setting unchanged, and insert the birth
        stories between them. Too bad that it somewhat spoilt his introduction.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm



        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
        $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
        http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/wpWolB/TM
        --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

        The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

        To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
        crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

        To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        List managers may be contacted directly at:
        crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com


        Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.