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

[Synoptic-L] Re: First Edition of Luke

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Larry, I am no expert on rhetoric, so I can only quote others on this. On 1:1-4, G.B.Caird (_Saint Luke_, Penguin Books, 1963, p.43): ..... a single
    Message 1 of 18 , Jun 18, 2000
      I wrote:

      >> This [ meaning 2:1 f. ] is not as formal as either 1:1-4 or 3:1-2

      Larry Swain replied:

      >Just a matter of course and method, how do you determine this?
      >Vocabulary? Syntax? Rhetorical devices?

      Larry,
      I am no expert on rhetoric, so I can only quote others on this.

      On 1:1-4, G.B.Caird (_Saint Luke_, Penguin Books, 1963, p.43):
      "..... a single resounding sentence in the delicately balanced style of
      classical rhetoric".

      On 3:1-2, G.W.H.Lampe (in _Peake's Commentary on the Bible_, Nelson,
      1962, p.826):
      "Lk's elaborate dating conforms to secular patterns, such as Thucydides
      ii,2 (the closest parallel to this passage) ....."

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 6/18/2000 7:25:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes:
      Message 2 of 18 , Jun 18, 2000
        In a message dated 6/18/2000 7:25:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        ron.price@... writes:

        << On 3:1-2, G.W.H.Lampe (in _Peake's Commentary on the Bible_, Nelson,
        1962, p.826):
        "Lk's elaborate dating conforms to secular patterns, such as Thucydides
        ii,2 (the closest parallel to this passage) .....">>


        Ron, please note where this passage occurs in Thucydides' History of the
        Pelopponesian War: not at the beginning of Chapter I, but toward the
        beginning of Chapter II. Is this not analogous to the placement of Lk 3:1ff
        in the Gospel of Luke as we have it?

        Leonard Maluf
      • Ron Price
        ... Leonard, never ? So when John makes Jn.B. say I am not the Messiah , or Philip say We have found him about whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets
        Message 3 of 18 , Jun 19, 2000
          Leonard Maluf wrote:

          >>The texts cited [John 1:45 and 6:42] do not suggest that Jn
          >>did not know of the virginal conception.

          I replied:

          > They certainly do *suggest* it. That's the plain reading of the text.

          Leonard added:

          >You must know, though, that "the plain reading of the text" is never
          >sufficient for an understanding of John.

          Leonard,
          "never"?
          So when John makes Jn.B. say "I am not the Messiah", or Philip say "We
          have found him about whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets wrote,
          Jesus .......", do you suppose there is something subtle in those words?

          True, there are lots of subtleties in John. But if you think 1:45 is
          one of them then in my opinion you need a better argument.
          "....... as the Evangelist has a way of correcting the errors and
          misunderstandings which he has just reported, these [ 1:45 and 6:42 ]
          may be further indications that the doctrine of the Virgin Birth had not
          yet reached the Church in which this Gospel took its rise." (W.F.Howard,
          _The Gospel according to St. John_, Duckworth, 1943, p.68)
          Neither Paul nor John refer explicitly to the Virgin Birth, so it is
          likely that they didn't know about it, or for some reason they rejected
          it. The onus of proof should be on those who think otherwise.

          I wrote:
          << On 3:1-2, G.W.H.Lampe (in _Peake's Commentary on the Bible_, Nelson,
          1962, p.826):
          "Lk's elaborate dating conforms to secular patterns, such as Thucydides
          ii,2 (the closest parallel to this passage) .....">>

          Leonard replied:
          >Ron, please note where this passage occurs in Thucydides' History of the
          >Pelopponesian War: not at the beginning of Chapter I, but toward the
          >beginning of Chapter II. Is this not analogous to the placement of Lk 3:1ff
          >in the Gospel of Luke as we have it?

          Leonard,
          I haven't read Thucydides so I don't know what is in ch.1, or how long
          it is. Had Lk 3:1ff been the only formal passage in Luke I might have
          had to accept the significance of the placement in Thucydides. But the
          point I was making is that I would have expected the distinctly formal
          parts in Luke to have been together rather than separated by birth
          narratives. Also it reads better that way. Try it. Luke 1:1-4; 3:1-2 is
          a wonderful and worthy beginning to the two-volume Luke-Acts, the first
          history of primitive Christianity.
          Of course Luke's primary source was Mark :-) and this explains why the
          story proper in the original edition started with John the Baptist.

          Ron Price

          Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

          e-mail: ron.price@...

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 6/19/2000 6:29:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes: ...
          Message 4 of 18 , Jun 19, 2000
            In a message dated 6/19/2000 6:29:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
            ron.price@... writes:

            << Leonard Maluf wrote:

            >>The texts cited [John 1:45 and 6:42] do not suggest that Jn
            >>did not know of the virginal conception.

            I replied:

            > They certainly do *suggest* it. That's the plain reading of the text.

            Leonard added:

            >You must know, though, that "the plain reading of the text" is never
            >sufficient for an understanding of John.

            << Leonard,
            "never"?
            So when John makes Jn.B. say "I am not the Messiah", or Philip say "We
            have found him about whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets wrote,
            Jesus .......", do you suppose there is something subtle in those words?>>

            "A plain reading" of the above texts would assume that these things were said
            by the persons to whom they are attributed. But this is extremely unlikely.
            John is developing a tradition, by means of these statements, that began with
            the Synoptics. He is in effect making explicit what is implicit in their
            texts, or more precisely, continuing a process of doing so that was begun
            already by Luke with respect to Matthew. Matthew simply gives us the words of
            John: "I baptize you with water unto repentance; the one who comes after me
            is stronger than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize
            you with holy spirit and fire..." Luke tells us that these words were uttered
            within a context of fervent messianic expectation and misidentification of
            John as perhaps the prophesied messianic figure (Luke 3:15), an idea that is
            only implicit in the cited words in Matthew. John further explicitates by
            having JB himself explicitly deny that he is the Messiah (just as JB also
            applies to himself the words of Malachi which the Synoptics have applied to
            him). Something similar could be said for the comment of Philip, and I
            believe this does involve a level of subtlety to properly understand the text
            of Jn. However, I don't believe we need to engage in an exchange over what
            precisely "a plain reading" of the text would be, nor need you take me so
            literally when I say that John can "never" be read this way.

            << True, there are lots of subtleties in John. But if you think 1:45 is
            one of them then in my opinion you need a better argument.
            "....... as the Evangelist has a way of correcting the errors and
            misunderstandings which he has just reported, these [ 1:45 and 6:42 ]
            may be further indications that the doctrine of the Virgin Birth had not
            yet reached the Church in which this Gospel took its rise." (W.F.Howard,
            _The Gospel according to St. John_, Duckworth, 1943, p.68)>>

            It is apparent that neither you nor W.F. Howard have read I. de la Potterie
            on this matter, and that therefore your shared opinion is relatively
            uninformed. What de la Potterie demonstrates is that in these two cases a
            structural reading of the larger text of Jn shows precisely that the
            continuation of both passages constitutes a "correction" of the opinion about
            Jesus and his origins expressed in the cited verses. So the "onus of proof"
            has already been shouldered. You may, of course, argue against de la
            Potterie's position, but please read it first.

            << Neither Paul nor John refer explicitly to the Virgin Birth, so it is
            likely that they didn't know about it, or for some reason they rejected
            it.>>

            Neither do Matthew or Luke, outside of their infancy narratives. I am aware
            that what you are saying is affirmed very frequently in the literature, but I
            don't accept that there is a valid logic here.

            << I wrote:
            "On 3:1-2, G.W.H.Lampe (in _Peake's Commentary on the Bible_, Nelson,
            1962, p.826):
            'Lk's elaborate dating conforms to secular patterns, such as Thucydides
            ii,2 (the closest parallel to this passage)' .....">>

            Leonard replied:
            >Ron, please note where this passage occurs in Thucydides' History of the
            >Pelopponesian War: not at the beginning of Chapter I, but toward the
            >beginning of Chapter II. Is this not analogous to the placement of Lk 3:1ff
            >in the Gospel of Luke as we have it?

            Leonard,
            I haven't read Thucydides so I don't know what is in ch.1, or how long
            it is. Had Lk 3:1ff been the only formal passage in Luke I might have
            had to accept the significance of the placement in Thucydides. But the
            point I was making is that I would have expected the distinctly formal
            parts in Luke to have been together rather than separated by birth
            narratives.>>

            Why on earth? They do not occur together in Thucydides (and the latter does
            have an opening to Book I that is similar to Luke's prologue). The passage in
            question actually occurs at the beginning of Book II, not chapter II (in
            accordance with ancient terminology). And Book I is way longer than the two
            chapters of Luke's infancy narratives, though perhaps proportionately to the
            length of the respective works, the analogy of the placement is virtually
            exact.


            << Also it reads better that way. Try it. Luke 1:1-4; 3:1-2 is
            a wonderful and worthy beginning to the two-volume Luke-Acts, the first
            history of primitive Christianity.>>

            This is as weak as the argument that says Luke's infancy narratives read more
            smoothly without the canticles, and that therefore the canticles were added
            at a relatively late stage of composition. It will convince those who are
            enamored of gradually developing things. But the evaluation of the evidence
            in both cases is subjective and will convince only those who are predisposed
            to developmental theories of Gospel composition and who are (in my judgment)
            overconfident in the scholar's ability to reconstruct these from the texts as
            we have them.

            << Of course Luke's primary source was Mark :-) and this explains why the
            story proper in the original edition started with John the Baptist.>>

            Since you began by admonishing me regarding the dangers of ever saying
            "never", I will have to conclude with a symmetrical warning about the use of
            "of course". It is quite likely (though not certain) that extended verbal
            agreement between Luke and Mark suggests copying by one or the other
            evangelist of the other evangelist's work. Given the way in which Luke uses
            the Gospel of Matthew, it seems unlikely to me that he would have simply
            copied so much from Mark; it therefore appears to me that the copying between
            Luke and Mark, if there was direct copying, was in the other direction. This
            works especially well if Mark also copied from Matthew since there is an
            almost exact symmetry between the way he would have copied from the two
            earlier and more literary Gospels.

            Leonard Maluf
          • David Conklin
            Ron, ... They certainly do *suggest* it. That s the plain reading of the text. If John was being very subtle in those verses, then he did a good job in hiding
            Message 5 of 18 , Jun 19, 2000
              Ron,

              >The texts cited [John 1:45 and 6:42] do not suggest that Jn did not know of
              >the virginal conception.

              They certainly do *suggest* it. That's the plain reading of the text.
              If John was being very subtle in those verses, then he did a good job in
              hiding a tradition which would surely have reinforced his theology.

              When I read the texts I don't find John making any comment one way or the
              other in regards to the VC of Jesus. He is simply repeating what others had
              said without noting if they were correct or not. It would seem highly
              peculiar if John in writing his gospel account last (with all due respect to
              J. A. T. Robinson!) did not know about the traditions that had already been
              preserved in Matthew and Luke.

              David Conklin
              St. Paul, MN
              Home page: biblestudy.iwarp.com
              ________________________________________________________________________
              Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
            • Yuri Kuchinsky
              ... [Leonard:] ... Potterie ... about ... proof ... I find this interesting, Leonard. So, as you assure us, de la Potterie demonstrated that the plain and
              Message 6 of 18 , Jun 19, 2000
                ----------
                > From: Maluflen@...
                > To: ron.price@...; Synoptic-L@...
                > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: First Edition of Luke
                > Date: Monday, June 19, 2000 10:19 AM
                >
                > In a message dated 6/19/2000 6:29:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                > ron.price@... writes:

                > << True, there are lots of subtleties in John. But if you think 1:45 is
                > one of them then in my opinion you need a better argument.
                > "....... as the Evangelist has a way of correcting the errors and
                > misunderstandings which he has just reported, these [ 1:45 and 6:42 ]
                > may be further indications that the doctrine of the Virgin Birth had not
                > yet reached the Church in which this Gospel took its rise." (W.F.Howard,
                > _The Gospel according to St. John_, Duckworth, 1943, p.68)>>

                [Leonard:]
                > It is apparent that neither you nor W.F. Howard have read I. de la
                Potterie
                > on this matter, and that therefore your shared opinion is relatively
                > uninformed. What de la Potterie demonstrates is that in these two cases a

                > structural reading of the larger text of Jn shows precisely that the
                > continuation of both passages constitutes a "correction" of the opinion
                about
                > Jesus and his origins expressed in the cited verses. So the "onus of
                proof"
                > has already been shouldered. You may, of course, argue against de la
                > Potterie's position, but please read it first.

                I find this interesting, Leonard. So, as you assure us, de la Potterie
                demonstrated that the plain and obvious meaning of Jn 1:45 ("Jesus, the son
                of Joseph") is not good enough, and that there's some subtlety involved
                there. I must admit that, after having read carefully what follows Jn 1:45,
                I did not succeed in discovering this very subtle "correction" to which you
                refer. And who exactly would have Jn been trying to correct? Perhaps you
                can elucidate this matter further for us?

                Generally it is believed that early Christians were not the highly educated
                doctors of the law who would have been used to "structural readings", and
                to reading various texts "between the lines". So why do you think the
                author of Jn would have chosen such a peculiar editorial strategy as you
                indicated? Surely he would have been concerned about the uneducated
                Christian masses, and mindful not to confuse them with too much subtlety?
                So what would have been the purpose of such subtlety, as you see it?

                I don't think Jn would have used subtlety merely for the sake of using
                subtlety, because early Christians were generally more democratic and not
                elitist.

                Yours,

                Yuri.

                Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

                The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
              • Ron Price
                ... Yuri, Thanks for that. Your mention of Loisy prompted me to look up my only readily available older modern commentator, namely Moffatt, who points out Acts
                Message 7 of 18 , Jun 20, 2000
                  Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                  >I like your argument that Lk had an earlier edition missing the nativity
                  >and infancy passages. This is what Loisy argued also.

                  Yuri,
                  Thanks for that.
                  Your mention of Loisy prompted me to look up my only readily available
                  older modern commentator, namely Moffatt, who points out Acts 1:1 and
                  1:22.
                  I had not been aware of the significance of these verses to my
                  argument.
                  For in Acts 1:1 Luke writes: "In the first book, O Theophilus, I have
                  dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day he was
                  taken up .......", c.f Acts 1:22 "..... beginning from the baptism of
                  John until the day when he was taken up .....".
                  If the impressive Lukan birth narratives had been present in the
                  gospel when Acts 1:1 was written, then surely the first book would have
                  been described as starting with the birth of Jesus.
                  This lends support to the chronology that I proposed in an earlier
                  posting, i.e. First Edition of Luke, Acts, and finally (perhaps after a
                  few years) Second Edition of Luke.


                  Ron Price

                  Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                  e-mail: ron.price@...

                  Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  In a message dated 6/20/2000 8:54:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes: ... Yuri, Thanks for that. Your mention of Loisy prompted me to
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jun 20, 2000
                    In a message dated 6/20/2000 8:54:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                    ron.price@... writes:

                    << Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                    >I like your argument that Lk had an earlier edition missing the nativity
                    >and infancy passages. This is what Loisy argued also.

                    Yuri,
                    Thanks for that.
                    Your mention of Loisy prompted me to look up my only readily available
                    older modern commentator, namely Moffatt, who points out Acts 1:1 and
                    1:22.
                    I had not been aware of the significance of these verses to my
                    argument.
                    For in Acts 1:1 Luke writes: "In the first book, O Theophilus, I have
                    dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day he was
                    taken up .......", c.f Acts 1:22 "..... beginning from the baptism of
                    John until the day when he was taken up .....".
                    If the impressive Lukan birth narratives had been present in the
                    gospel when Acts 1:1 was written, then surely the first book would have
                    been described as starting with the birth of Jesus.>>

                    I have not addressed Yuri's intervention directly, and do not intend to do
                    so, since he merely tells us what he thinks, which doesn't interest me in the
                    least. The only thing that arouses my interest on this list are comments made
                    that reflect serious engagement with the Synoptic (and related) texts and
                    opinions that are grounded in evidence found in those texts.

                    Your new argument from Moffat is interesting, because based on relevant
                    texts, but in the end I would have to judge it more showy than substantive.
                    It is the kind of evidence, once again, which appeals to persons who on other
                    grounds are disposed to posit the existence of a primitive Luke without
                    infancy narratives. Your (or Moffat's) immediate juxtaposition of Acts 1:1
                    and 1:22, for the sake of a point, does not respect the different contexts of
                    the two verses, and therefore contains the fatal flaw of interpreting a text
                    out of its proper context. In the latter passage, Luke is no longer talking
                    about his earlier work (the writing of his Gospel), but rather of the
                    duration of time required for a potential apostle to have been with Jesus,
                    namely, from the beginning of his public ministry which began after the
                    baptism of John, and ending with his ascension into heaven. It is
                    illegitimate, therefore, to use this verse to interpret Acts 1:1 (the
                    presence of the term "began" in both passages is not sufficient to establish
                    a thematic connection between the two verses).

                    As for Acts 1:1 itself, it is of course consistent with the view that an
                    original Gospel of Luke without the infancy narratives existed (many things
                    are), but does nothing at all to bolster (or at least nothing at all to
                    demonstrate the validity of) that view. The verse is a highly condensed
                    reference to Luke's earlier work; the terminology is conventional and
                    reflects a common historiographical/biographical division of material into
                    the deeds and words of a subject of those genres (poiein... kai didaskein).
                    There is no reason why such a stylized reference to his earlier work need
                    have made separate reference to Luke's birth narratives if they existed. On
                    the other hand, many authors have pointed to numerous parallels between the
                    opening chapters of Luke's gospel and the opening stories of Acts which
                    rather point in the direction of a conscious modeling of Acts on a Gospel
                    which already contained Luke's infancy narratives.

                    Leonard Maluf
                  • Ron Price
                    ... Leonard, I made no claim that the argument to which Moffatt (please note the spelling) referred is sufficient in itself to settle the existence of a First
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jun 21, 2000
                      Leonard Maluf wrote:

                      >Your new argument from Moffat is interesting, because based on relevant
                      >texts, but in the end I would have to judge it more showy than substantive.
                      >It is the kind of evidence, once again, which appeals to persons who on other
                      >grounds are disposed to posit the existence of a primitive Luke without
                      >infancy narratives.

                      Leonard,

                      I made no claim that the argument to which Moffatt (please note the
                      spelling) referred is sufficient in itself to settle the existence of a
                      First Edition of Luke lacking the birth narratives.
                      However I should point out that several small arguments can, when put
                      together, amount to a significant case. This is especially true here
                      because opponents of a hypothesis of two editions can supply no
                      *positive* narrative evidence for their case. For in the 35000 words
                      which follow the birth narratives in Luke-Acts in our standard Greek
                      text, there is not a single clear reference back to the events in
                      1:5-2:52, which the author there presents as highly significant.

                      Ron Price

                      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                      e-mail: ron.price@...

                      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      In a message dated 6/21/2000 5:07:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes:
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jun 21, 2000
                        In a message dated 6/21/2000 5:07:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                        ron.price@... writes:

                        << I made no claim that the argument to which Moffatt (please note the
                        spelling) referred is sufficient in itself to settle the existence of a
                        First Edition of Luke lacking the birth narratives.
                        However I should point out that several small arguments can, when put
                        together, amount to a significant case. This is especially true here
                        because opponents of a hypothesis of two editions can supply no
                        *positive* narrative evidence for their case. For in the 35000 words
                        which follow the birth narratives in Luke-Acts in our standard Greek
                        text, there is not a single clear reference back to the events in
                        1:5-2:52, which the author there presents as highly significant.>>


                        I think this statement shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental
                        nature of the infancy accounts: they are not, in my view, presented by the
                        author as "events" that are in themselves "highly significant". Rather, they
                        are creations by Luke whose purpose is to bring out, in story form, the
                        highly significant theological dimension of the well-known events of Jesus'
                        public life, his death and his resurrection. The omission of a "clear"
                        reference to these stories in the remainder of Luke's work is perhaps
                        analogous to the omission of a clear reference to the Eucharist in the
                        Christian creeds. The Eucharist is by its nature relative to (a way of
                        appreciating the relevance of) the very truths which the creed proclaims in
                        another way.

                        On the other hand, there are numerous ways in which the subsequent narratives
                        in Luke-Acts can be viewed as fulfillment of promises of God made through
                        intermediaries in Luke's infancy stories. This pattern of promise and
                        fulfillment could be developed in terms of specific redactional features of
                        Luke's narrative as well, which would illustrate the coherency of his work as
                        it has come down to us.

                        Leonard Maluf
                      • Jack Kilmon
                        ... The main theme of the infancy narratives is the virgin birth. Although this is a frequent theme that has been discussed many times, it is not possible to
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jun 21, 2000
                          Maluflen@... wrote:
                          >
                          > In a message dated 6/21/2000 5:07:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                          > ron.price@... writes:
                          >
                          > << I made no claim that the argument to which Moffatt (please note the
                          > spelling) referred is sufficient in itself to settle the existence of a
                          > First Edition of Luke lacking the birth narratives.
                          > However I should point out that several small arguments can, when put
                          > together, amount to a significant case. This is especially true here
                          > because opponents of a hypothesis of two editions can supply no
                          > *positive* narrative evidence for their case. For in the 35000 words
                          > which follow the birth narratives in Luke-Acts in our standard Greek
                          > text, there is not a single clear reference back to the events in
                          > 1:5-2:52, which the author there presents as highly significant.>>
                          >
                          > I think this statement shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental
                          > nature of the infancy accounts: they are not, in my view, presented by the
                          > author as "events" that are in themselves "highly significant". Rather, they
                          > are creations by Luke whose purpose is to bring out, in story form, the
                          > highly significant theological dimension of the well-known events of Jesus'
                          > public life, his death and his resurrection. The omission of a "clear"
                          > reference to these stories in the remainder of Luke's work is perhaps
                          > analogous to the omission of a clear reference to the Eucharist in the
                          > Christian creeds. The Eucharist is by its nature relative to (a way of
                          > appreciating the relevance of) the very truths which the creed proclaims in
                          > another way.


                          The main "theme" of the infancy narratives is the virgin birth. Although
                          this is a frequent theme that has been discussed many times, it is not
                          possible to address the Infancy Narratives without it.

                          The Lukan scribe was supposedly not a Jew. He was a gentile.
                          Although his use of Jewish literary style and possibly competence in
                          Aramaic make me wonder. It is obvious
                          that his infancy narrative is different and contradictory to the
                          Matthean
                          narrative. Regardless, the purpose of these narratives were never to
                          make a record of what *really happened* but to make a statement
                          about what it *really meant* so let me expound a bit.

                          Being "born of the spirit" does *not* imply a virginal conception. You
                          will find Paul using the expression for Isaac in Galatians 4:29. So
                          what
                          is Luke accomplishing with the infancy narrative? In the first stage
                          of the announcement Luke must show that Jesus' birth is more
                          extraordinary
                          than a similar announcement to Elizabeth for John the Baptist.

                          Luke 1:32-33 is therefore the 1st stage of the announcement that
                          establishes
                          the extraordinary character of Jesus in a Davidic AND Messianic role.
                          In
                          this Luke is clearly dependent on the Davidic Dynasty prediction of
                          Nathan
                          at 2 Samuel 7:9-16. This is called Aggadic Midrash and the Semitic
                          syntax
                          of this narrative makes it clear that Luke got it from a Semitic source
                          AS
                          an aggadic midrash. Luke is identifying Jesus as the Davidic Messiah
                          and
                          is conforming perfectly with pre-Christian Palestinian messianic
                          expectation.

                          You can see the same reference in the Dead Sea Scroll 4QFlor 10-13
                          which also cites 2Samuel 7:11-14 that speaks my son as the "shoot of
                          david" who
                          will arise in the last days, sit upon David's throne and save Israel.
                          This
                          Davidic heir, however is NOT the Messiah. It is Luke who makes that
                          connection for the first time.

                          No "Son of God" reference in the DSS corpus is understood in a
                          messianic sense. So Jesus is portrayed by Luke as the davidic Messiah
                          in verse 32-33.

                          It is the SECOND stage of the angelic announcement in Luke that states
                          Jesus is not only the Davidic messiah but ALSO God's son.

                          ONLY verses 34-35 support a "virginal conception" and there is
                          some lexical support for these two verses not to have been part of the
                          original since verse 33 flows well into verse 36.

                          I am inclined to believe, however, that Luke DID write these two verses
                          whether in the 1st edition or added later. At first blush this might
                          seem
                          to weaken my own position since my case would be stronger if Luke
                          did not write verses 34-35 upon which the whole virgin birth teaching
                          hangs. Instead, I think they fit with what Luke was trying to
                          accomplish..

                          Let's look at the pre-Lukan position of Paul on this issue at Romans
                          1:3-4:


                          Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was
                          made of the
                          seed of David
                          ***according to the flesh***;

                          Rom 1:4 And ***declared*** [to be] the Son of God with power,
                          according
                          to the spirit of
                          holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

                          Paul, some 30-40 years before, is claiming that Jesus became "was
                          declared" the
                          Son of God
                          at the resurrection but was born "of the seed" (by a man and woman)
                          according to
                          the flesh.

                          Of course, Paul, who never knew Jesus and was not interested in his life
                          or
                          teachings, was
                          preaching "Christ Crucified" or the resurrected Christ...so to Paul,
                          Jesus became
                          the Son of God
                          at the resurrection.

                          The indication that Luke changed this position and inserted it in the
                          Gospel
                          *after* he had
                          completed both Luke and Acts is seen in his earlier position at Acts
                          13:33:


                          Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children,
                          in that he
                          hath raised up Jesus
                          again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this
                          day have
                          I begotten thee.

                          So we have clear evidence that Luke is pushing back Jesus' "sonship"
                          from the
                          resurrection to
                          his birth...but why? What is he trying to accomplish?

                          Luke was attempting to push the sonship back even further than the
                          Jerusalem
                          group that contended he became the Son of God at his baptism. This
                          announcement
                          is
                          made in Mark as the earliest position recorded:

                          Mar 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved
                          Son, in
                          whom I am
                          well pleased.

                          The gentile Christians were insisting that this sonship had to come
                          earlier than
                          the Jewish
                          followers contended and Luke was accomodating that viewpoint.

                          The Infancy Narratives were, therefore, theologoumenon to say something
                          about
                          Jesus, *not* Mary. The virginity is not in the *biological* sense as the
                          verbs
                          "coming upon" and "casting a shadow over" *clearly* imply nothing about
                          conception.

                          Jack

                          --
                          ______________________________________________

                          taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

                          Jack Kilmon
                          jkilmon@...

                          http://www.historian.net

                          sharing a meal for free.
                          http://www.thehungersite.com/
                        • Ron Price
                          ... Leonard, Sure the infancy accounts were Lukan creations. But they were presented as events, just as the so-called Journey to Jerusalem in its entirety,
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jun 22, 2000
                            Leonard Maluf wrote:

                            >the infancy accounts ....... are not, in my view, presented by the
                            >author as "events" that are in themselves "highly significant". Rather, they
                            >are creations by Luke whose purpose is to bring out, in story form, the
                            >highly significant theological dimension of the well-known events of Jesus'
                            >public life, his death and his resurrection.

                            Leonard,
                            Sure the infancy accounts were Lukan creations.
                            But they were presented as events, just as the so-called 'Journey to
                            Jerusalem' in its entirety, the resurrection appearance on the way to
                            Emmaus and also the ascension (Acts 1:2,22) were presented as events.
                            Modern critical commentators may realize that as presented they could
                            not have been historical events, but this does not affect the
                            presentation of the original author or the understanding of his early
                            readers/hearers.

                            Ron Price

                            Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                            e-mail: ron.price@...

                            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                          • Maluflen@aol.com
                            In a message dated 6/22/2000 4:37:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes:
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jun 22, 2000
                              In a message dated 6/22/2000 4:37:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                              ron.price@... writes:

                              << Leonard,
                              Sure the infancy accounts were Lukan creations.
                              But they were presented as events, just as the so-called 'Journey to
                              Jerusalem' in its entirety, the resurrection appearance on the way to
                              Emmaus and also the ascension (Acts 1:2,22) were presented as events.
                              Modern critical commentators may realize that as presented they could
                              not have been historical events, but this does not affect the
                              presentation of the original author or the understanding of his early
                              readers/hearers.>>


                              This is a possible theory, Ron, but I would disagree with it. I think it is
                              clear (and it is so to me partly because of my source theory) that Luke would
                              have perfectly well seen a difference, from the point of view of historicity,
                              between the infancy narratives, which he clearly creates in contradistinction
                              to those he finds in Matthew, and which have a clearly introductory and
                              interpretative function analogous to those of Matthew, and the events of
                              Jesus' public ministry, which could likewise be manipulated literarily, but
                              within somewhat stricter limits. In this respect I do not believe that
                              "modern critical commentators" have a significant edge over Luke in the first
                              century. He was fully as sophisticated as we like to think we are and much
                              deeper than most us (including myself) in his knowledge of the Old Testament.

                              Leonard Maluf
                            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                              ... Umm... what about the use of Son of the Most High in the so-called Aramaic Apocalypse? Yours, Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) 7423 N.
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jun 22, 2000
                                Jack Kilmon wrote:

                                > No "Son of God" reference in the DSS corpus is understood in a
                                > messianic sense. So Jesus is portrayed by Luke as the davidic Messiah
                                > in verse 32-33.
                                >

                                Umm... what about the use of "Son of the Most High" in the so-called Aramaic
                                Apocalypse?

                                Yours,

                                Jeffrey



                                --
                                Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                                7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                                Chicago, Illinois 60626
                                e-mail jgibson000@...
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.