Re: [Synoptic-L] Christmas
- "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:
> "Thomas R. W. Longstaff" wrote:As an afterthought to the above, I'd like to add a point I should have made there
> > Although this discussion of Pauline theology is somewhat far afield from a
> > consideration of the synoptic gospels, after reading Wilson's question I
> > asked myself, almost at once, whether 2 Corinthians 8.9 might reflect
> > something similar to what we find in Philippians 2.4ff.
> But as I have noted (in a post that just crossed yours), it does so **only**
> if 2 Cor 8:9 is a reference to the incarnation. But, as Dunn and others have
> pointed out, despite the number of commentators who have assumed it is, this
> is by no means certain (as is the case, by the way, of Philippians 2:4ff, as
> well -- see Dunn, _Christology in the Making_, 114-121). There **are** other
> ways of reading this (and the Philippians) text.
regarding Thomas' association of the theology allegedly behind Phillippians 2:4ff
with 2 Cor 8:9 and his reading of 2 Cor 8:9 in the light of it -- namely, that
**even if** the Philippians text **does** assume Jesus' pre-existence (a point I
am not willing to grant -- but mention here for the sake of argument), what
grounds do we have for saying that what is presupposed there stands as the
background of 2 Cor 8:9? Now it may very well be the case that it is, but I don't
think it is legitimate simply to assume that it is.
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
- 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?"