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

[Synoptic-L] Re: First Edition of Luke

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.