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

RE: [XTalk] BNTC part 2

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , Sep 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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,

      -----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?


      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.

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

      To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:

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

      List managers may be contacted directly at:

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