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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Christmas

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... As an afterthought to the above, I d like to add a point I should have made there regarding Thomas association of the theology allegedly behind
    Message 1 of 38 , Dec 11, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:

      > "Thomas R. W. Longstaff" wrote:
      >
      >
      > > 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.
      >

      As an afterthought to the above, I'd like to add a point I should have made there
      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.

      Yours,

      Jeffrey




      --
      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
      • 0 Attachment
        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)
        scmiller@...
        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.