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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Christmas

Expand Messages
  • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
    Indeed. It might also be that for such details as born of a woman one need not look for close literary dependence. trwl
    Message 1 of 38 , Dec 10, 1999
      Indeed. It might also be that for such details as "born of a woman" one
      need not look for close literary dependence.


      At 07:29 AM 12/10/99 -0600, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
      >"Brian E. Wilson" wrote:
      > > Do the letters of Paul in the NT indicate that Paul knew the Christmas
      > > stories we find in Mt 1-2 and Lk 1-2 ?
      >Off the top of my head, no. So far as I can recall without doing any
      >checking is that all Paul says is that is materially in any way parallel
      >to anything in the infancy narratives of Matt and Lk is that Jesus was
      >born of a woman, born under the Law -- that is to say that he knows Jesus
      >was a Jew. For a source for this, the traditions in Mk 3 and Mk 6 serve
      >just as well.
      >Jeffrey B. Gibson
      >7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      >Chicago, Illinois 60626
      >e-mail jgibson000@...
    • Steven Craig Miller
      To: Mark Preece,
      Message 38 of 38 , Dec 16, 1999
        To: Mark Preece,

        << The author seems to be going to some lengths to establish that this all
        happens in a very compressed period of time -- in fact, on a single day. In
        light of this, is it really plausible to think "DE" ("then he led them
        out...") means anything other than "very soon thereafter"? Certainly not
        "many days later". >>

        The issue as I see it is whether one is going to accuse Luke here of
        inconsistency (and I have no problem with doing that) or impression. My
        suggestion is not that DE means "many days later," only that it means
        "but/and/then" and that Luke could have used it merely to imply that this
        event recorded in Lk 24:50 also took place. It seems to me that to be fair
        the charge of inconsistency demands a higher threshold than the accusation
        of impression (or ambiguity). Then, after you accuse Luke of inconsistency,
        you seem to want to suggest that Luke didn't care for historical details.
        Frankly, an ambiguous example as this simply can't prove such a conclusion.
        Your example would carry more weight if Luke had written, "and on this day"
        (or some such). But he didn't, all Luke wrote was "and" (DE).
        Unfortunately, the Greek particle DE doesn't tell us when.

        Also, I find it kind of ironic that one can suggest that Luke might not be
        concerned with historical details in light of such passages as Lk 1:1-4;
        2:1-2; and 3:23-38. Now here is a guy (and I assume that the author of
        Luke's gospel was male) who attempts to record Jesus' genealogy from his
        papa and grand-papa, all the way back, generation by generation, to Adam
        and ultimately to God! He obviously cares for such details, or he wouldn't
        have put them into his gospel.

        -Steven Craig Miller
        Alton, Illinois (USA)
        Disclaimer: "I'm just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree),
        what do I know?"
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.