RE: [XTalk] BNTC part 2
- 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
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- why not from the start?
> 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
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.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
List managers may be contacted directly at:
Yahoo! Groups Links