- Brian Wilson wrote -
>"I was wondering about -
>Does this make sense if Paul did not know something like the "Christmas
>2 Corinthians 8.9 - "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
>that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor."
story" of Matthew/Luke?"
>Jeffrey Gibson replied -
>I am not sure that this interpretation of 2 Cor 8.9 can seriously be
>It only makes sense if and only if (a) this is not a referent to a fact
>that, despite what the Gospel tradition seems to imply, Jesus came from
>a well off family but in his adult life chose poverty, and (b)...
held to be what Paul intended. For the logical conclusion would be that
in Paul's view the Christians at Corinth had all at one time been poor
in terms of material possessions, but that as a result of them becoming
Christians they had all become materially wealthy, because of the
financial generosity of Jesus. This does not seem to square with what we
know of the situation at Corinth, with the general attitude of Paul to
material possessions shown in the rest of his writings, or the
representation of Jesus in the gospels and the rest of the NT. I think
this interpretation therefore does not need to be included in any
attempt to understand 2 Cor 8.9.
My point is that Paul's understanding of the pre-existence and human
life of Jesus in 2 Cor 8.9 seems to be his "Christmas story" which would
seem to depend on something like the Christmas story we find in
Matthew/Luke. I am not suggesting that Paul knew the Gospels of Matthew
and Luke. My thought is that maybe Paul had written Jesus tradition
which was also available, later, to Au-Matthew and Au-Luke. If not, then
the question remains how to explain this "Christmas story" in Paul.
I wondered -
>To which you replied -
>Also about the similarities between Romans 1.3 and Lk 1.26-35:
>descended from David - of the house of David
>according to the flesh - you will conceive in your womb
>Son of God - Son of God
>in power - and the power of the Most High
>the spirit of holiness - the Holy Spirit will come upon you
>I am not sure that the two possibilities you describe are mutually
>Rather than Rom being a referent to the tradition in the earlier
>portion of GLuke, it seems more likely that the theologoumenon narrated
>in Luke is based upon the tradition that Paul calls to mind in Romans.
exclusive. Many scholars have considered that Au-Luke is using some of
the oldest Jewish-Christian tradition in these chapters. The tradition
called to mind in Romans could have been one and the same tradition as
that preserved in GLuke, it would seem.
I added -
>You replied -
>I suppose we could ask a similar question about the Fourth Gospel. Are
>there any indications that John knew the Christmas story of
>Yes. But I was hoping others (including yourself) on Synoptic-L might
>Do you have any texts in John in mind as possible allusions?
want to give their views on this at this stage.
E-MAIL : brian@... HOMEPAGE
SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
10 York Close, Godmanchester, www.twonh.demon.co.uk
Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8EB, UK
- 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?"