Scriptural literacy

[Ichneumonwasp]

By the way, have any of you guys/gals read Jeremiah lately?

 

[Greediguts]

Well, here's a question -- was the birth story original to Luke or a later addition? Marcion had a version of Luke with no birth narrative apparently.

I tend to think the birth story was there, but for a weird reason with which probably no one else will agree. I don't think there was ever a Q document. I've had this weird feeling for some time -- could be the tacos, I guess -- that Luke, when s/he referred to the other accounts didn't mean only Mark but also Matthew. I don't know why scholars think that Matthew and Luke were written independently, but not being a scholar it is probably just my ignorance. What if Luke, as Matthew was written in reaction to Mark, wrote in reaction to both Mark and Matthew and included and changed what was in Matthew?

The scholarly consensus seems to be that Mark is the primary source of Luke’s work, but Luke has about 200 verses, mainly sayings of Jesus, that are also found in Matthew (varying degrees of closeness, but quite evident). So about 1/5th of the Gospel is “shared” material with Matthew. Scholars feel this is where the lost “Q” gospel comes into play. Both writers used it. These scholars also believe Luke introduced the “Q” source into his Gospel in a fairly unrevised form.

There are a select few who also say there was no “Q” gospel. Some point to the unity of Luke’s work with Matthew and determine that Luke had a copy of Matthew’s Gospel and used it in the composition of his Gospel.

Here is an argument against the existence of “Q” altogether. Apparently, the author ate the same tacos...


---
One thing that is becoming more and more apparent to me as I get deeper and deeper into the NT is the apparent loss of creative theology which helped to make a distinct Christian identity and instead, it’s replaced by the growing concern with defending the church/belief system through organization and proper thought. Acts (though very creative) is for me, the beginning of the end (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Peter are the end).
---

Well, the Luke author always seems to place a buffer between terms such as "Son of the Most High" and him/herself. The angel said that others would use that term, not the author or Jesus directly. Almost all references to Jesus as the Son of God are made by others, not Jesus and not the author. I still see there being a bit of ambiguity, maybe deliberate?

ETA: Also, Luke and Mary in Luke refers to Joseph as Jesus' father (or the two of them as his parents), and makes a big deal over the whole genealogy of Joseph.

Hokulele, I had a point to make about Luke and its audience and for the life of me I can't recall it. Sorry. Hopefully it will come back to me. My sleep schedule is a little "off" at the moment, so I tend to drift sometimes...what were we talking about? Luke Skywalker? Star Wars movies? Empire Strikes Back is the best out of all of them.....

Seriously though, the genealogy that Luke presents is (I believe) to be looked at theologically rather than factually. Luke (unlike Matthew's genealogy)traces Jesus through David and Abraham to Adam. So Luke is basically saying that Jesus restores the people of Israel (David), fulfills God's promise of a wider salvation (Abraham - see Genesis 12:3) and brings everyone back to God, re-establishing their relationship before the fall (Adam).

 

[Hokulele]

Hokulele, I had a point to make about Luke and its audience and for the life of me I can't recall it. Sorry. Hopefully it will come back to me. My sleep schedule is a little "off" at the moment, so I tend to drift sometimes...what were we talking about? Luke Skywalker? Star Wars movies? Empire Strikes Back is the best out of all of them.....

Empire Strikes Back? Now you aren't being serious.

Seriously though, the genealogy that Luke presents is (I believe) to be looked at theologically rather than factually. Luke (unlike Matthew's genealogy)traces Jesus through David and Abraham to Adam. So Luke is basically saying that Jesus restores the people of Israel (David), fulfills God's promise of a wider salvation (Abraham - see Genesis 12:3) and brings everyone back to God, re-establishing their relationship before the fall (Adam).

I read it exactly the same way, which for me reinforces the opinion of OT Messiah rather than divine being. Maybe Luke is offering an olive branch to the Jewish Christians?

 

[Greediguts]

By the way, have any of you guys/gals read Jeremiah lately?

Dude, I'm just playing catch-up with you and Hokulele!!!

Empire Strikes Back? Now you aren't being serious.

So next an exegesis of the Star Wars stories?

I read it exactly the same way, which for me reinforces the opinion of OT Messiah rather than divine being. Maybe Luke is offering an olive branch to the Jewish Christians?

How so exactly? All the Gospel writers try to tie Jesus to OT prophecy. The ancient Jews never expected the Messiah to be divine anyhow. The soon-to-be Christian/Jewish sect added that to the mix. The Jews expected an earthly anointed king ruling over the earthly state of Israel. The Christians made him Lord over all ruling in Heaven (hence divine).

G'night......zzzzzzzzzz...........

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

About Q, I know that is the scholarly consensus, but scholars have been wrong before. I am perfectly open to the idea that there was a common source, but wonder about the chances that Luke simply knew and changed Matthew. Some of the work on Q sounds to me like assumptions built on assumptions built on assumptions --especially the idea of there being different stages to Q's compilation.

There is at least one parable in Mark that Matthew changed the wording of and Luke has the exact same change in it, same wording as Matthew. It may be that they came to the same conclusion about the way Mark worded things in the parable of wicked husbandman (how do you kill someone and then throw them out of the garden?) or it may be that Luke had Matthew in his hands.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

One thing that is becoming more and more apparent to me as I get deeper and deeper into the NT is the apparent loss of creative theology which helped to make a distinct Christian identity and instead, it’s replaced by the growing concern with defending the church/belief system through organization and proper thought. Acts (though very creative) is for me, the beginning of the end (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Peter are the end

Yeah, agreed. The proto-orthodoxy seems to be forming up in strength by the end of the first century with the beginnings of an apostolic tradition (the pastoral epistles even seem to indicate that some of the gospel message was being considered scripture fairly early).

Another of my wacky ideas is this: since we don't really know if gnosticism pre-dated Christianity, what do you think the chances are that it grew out of the charasmatic Pauline communities? First Corinthians seems to indicate considerable deviation of thought from whatever the original message was supposed to be and presumably within a very short period of time. What might happen in communities who thought the Spirit was the way to truth without someone correcting them all the time?

I mean the People's Front of Judea is all fine and well, but the Judean People's Front might just have the answer...............

 

[Greediguts]

Another of my wacky ideas is this: since we don't really know if gnosticism pre-dated Christianity, what do you think the chances are that it grew out of the charasmatic Pauline communities? First Corinthians seems to indicate considerable deviation of thought from whatever the original message was supposed to be and presumably within a very short period of time. What might happen in communities who thought the Spirit was the way to truth without someone correcting them all the time?

Didn't Bart talk about Gnosticism actually starting within the early church? Lost Christianities maybe? Unless it was Elaine Pagels.....I'll have to go back and look.

Deviations began early on, as you pointed out. Some various sect probably came out of Pauline dominated churchs. It wouldn't suprise me. What do you see as the Pauline influence in Gnosticism?

I mean the People's Front of Judea is all fine and well, but the Judean People's Front might just have the answer...............

SPLITTER!!!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Didn't Bart talk about Gnosticism actually starting within the early church? Lost Christianities maybe? Unless it was Elaine Pagels.....I'll have to go back and look.

Deviations began early on, as you pointed out. Some various sect probably came out of Pauline dominated churchs. It wouldn't suprise me. What do you see as the Pauline influence in Gnosticism?

IIRC Ehrman is very diplomatic about it and won't commit to gnosticism as an actual entity until the second century. I have a sneaking suspicion it started earlier, partly influenced by Pagels and her belief that John was written in response to gnosticism.

Not any definite Pauline influence -- just reading between the lines with 1 Corinthians. There seem to be some people who think that the whole thing is spiritual and that they were already receiving the benefits of the resurrection in this life. While we don't know what he really taught them he seemed quite incensed that they came up with that idea. It seems that if you follow a line of thought from there and mix it with a few Hellenistic/Egyptian elements that gnosticism might form out of the soup. It was probably not an actual Pauline sect but some group that may have begun in a similar fashion in Egypt since Alexandria seems to have been, if not the origin, then one of the hotbeds.

 

[Greediguts]

Just came across this and wanted to pass it along- It's Bart Erhman and Elaine Pagels appearing on a radio show discussing the Gospel of Judas, early Christianity, Gnosticism, etc.

Look under Oct 12, 2006.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Just came across this and wanted to pass it along- It's Bart Erhman and Elaine Pagels appearing on a radio show discussing the Gospel of Judas, early Christianity, Gnosticism, etc.

Look under Oct 12, 2006.

Cool, thanks.

 

[Hokulele]

Just came across this and wanted to pass it along- It's Bart Erhman and Elaine Pagels appearing on a radio show discussing the Gospel of Judas, early Christianity, Gnosticism, etc.

Look under Oct 12, 2006.

Neat, thanks for posting this.

I have Pagels sitting on my desk, just begging to be read. Fortunately (or not), I will be on airplanes quite a bit of the day tomorrow, and that should give me a chance to catch up with you guys.

 

[Greediguts]

Found a video of Bart debating the historical evidence for the resurrection. I'm just putting in the link because there are other videos listed with Bart in them on the youtube page here.

 

[Greediguts]

Neat, thanks for posting this.

I have Pagels sitting on my desk, just begging to be read. Fortunately (or not), I will be on airplanes quite a bit of the day tomorrow, and that should give me a chance to catch up with you guys.

Hope you experience safe and trouble-free travel Hokulele!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Greediguts,

Thanks for the links. The debate was terrific.

OK, next issue, since Hokulele is re-reading Acts, and I need to again anyway: What do you think about the Paul conversion story (stories?) in Acts vs. what he says in his letters? Reconcilable, or does this tell us that Luke either made **** up or played fast and loose with the traditions?

My theory: I don't think they match, but I don't think Luke invented the conversion on the road to Damascus whole cloth (as has been suggested by some). He may have set it on the road to Damascus from Jerusalem, but my guess is that he was working from earlier sources which provided contradictory accounts -- which is why we get three different scenarios for what was seen and heard and who fell down or remained standing.

 

[Greediguts]

Greediguts,

Thanks for the links. The debate was terrific.

OK, next issue, since Hokulele is re-reading Acts, and I need to again anyway: What do you think about the Paul conversion story (stories?) in Acts vs. what he says in his letters? Reconcilable, or does this tell us that Luke either made **** up or played fast and loose with the traditions?

My theory: I don't think they match, but I don't think Luke invented the conversion on the road to Damascus whole cloth (as has been suggested by some). He may have set it on the road to Damascus from Jerusalem, but my guess is that he was working from earlier sources which provided contradictory accounts -- which is why we get three different scenarios for what was seen and heard and who fell down or remained standing.

I've read some apologetics that explain the problems with Luke's conversion stories. 1st one is Acts 9:7- Jesus appears to him, but his traveling companions heard a voice but saw nothing and are not knocked to the ground. This is the author (Luke) telling the story. The next time in Acts 22:9, Paul is telling the story so he says his companions saw the light but heard nothing. Last, Acts 26:14 states that everyone fell to the ground. This is Paul again telling the story at his trial. So they feel Luke made minor changes depending on the context.

If Acts was written about 80-85 CE, this was at least a generation after Paul. The author probably collected stories about Paul that had been circulating for decades and wrote them down. Whether the author is staying close to each individual story collected, or playing fast and loose, I'm not sure. What does trouble me are the larger differences between Acts and Paul's own letters.

Acts chapter 17 (pretty much the whole chapter) has Paul talking to a crowd of Athenians. The basic underlining theme is "you worship alot of different gods, there is actually only one; He will forgive you of your ignorance if you repent". So God will give them a mulligan.

Compare that story (and tone) with Paul's own letter to the Romans (Chapter 1:18-32). God offers no forgiveness to people who worship other gods, they know what they have been doing all along and so they will suffer.

Hmmmm......

Luke also has Peter (?) begin converting Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11 - all Peter). Compare this with Galatians 2:7-21. Paul has a heated debate with Peter regarding Gentiles and if they need to follow Jewish law.

I see Bart has a book called Peter, Paul, and Mary: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. Guess I'll be picking that up.....

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yeah, that's pretty much my take on it too.

I have read a few others who contend that Luke made up all the stuff about Paul including the conversion story, but that doesn't make sense to me because there are three different versions in Acts. If he made it all up I would expect some internal consistency; people have trouble keeping straight what lie they told but not what story they wrote. Luke placing Paul in that situation I buy, and earlier traditions about him having some sort of conversion experience (which I think is unlikely in reality given what he has to say in the letters) I also buy; and Luke simply repeating the traditions he has access to I also buy.

Here's one I have serious trouble with, though I think there may be an explanation. Luke clearly knew stories about Paul, and we have this tradition of him being a travelling companion as well (probably invented). But, if Luke knew about Paul, how is it that he never mentions any of the letters or any of the theology in the letters? Could he have wanted to create an entirely different identity for Paul than what we can glean from the letters?

The whole point of Acts, from what I recall, is apostolic tradition, apostolic tradition, apostolic tradition (including Paul) -- even to the point where he has Paul being reared (or at least taught) in Jerusalem, standing by while Stephen is stoned to death, having his conversion experience on the road from Jerusalem to Damascus, etc. It's like everything flows from Jerusalem out to the world in this book in the same way that everything flowed out of the Galilee to Judea, etc. in Luke's gospel. And all of this despite the fact that Paul specifically says that they didn't know him in Jerusalem.

Do you think Luke may not have mentioned the letters because he wanted to cast Paul as an apostle in the apostolic tradition coming out of Jerusalem, and he knew the letters contradicted that info?

The other issue is this: why in the friggin' world would anyone need to structure a story to argue for the apostolic tradition unless there were already serious problems with contending interpretations of the faith?

 

[Hokulele]

Paul's letters make it fairly clear that there are already serious schisms within the early Christian communities. Luke have been trying to either patch up or gloss over these in an effort to make Christianity more appealing. Luke's other main theme seems to be the acceptance of the unacceptable, and this message may have been seen less like hypocrisy if various groups weren't warring with each other.

I also get the sense that Luke was making the spread of Christianity seem inevitable with all of his/her stories. The fact that the Holy Spirit was interacting directly with the apostles, Peter could continue to perform miracles, even the Christians greatest enemy in Saul came over onto their side.

 

[Greediguts]

Just wanted to point something out that Randel Helms noted about Acts. I had forgotten it until I read the verse again. He feels the author of Luke takes ideas from the Bacchae by Euripides. Acts 26:14 is a line that stood out for me.

"When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It hurts you to kick against the goads".

I never recalled reading the word "goads" anywhere else in the N.T. I wasn't even sure what a "goad" was (a pointed stick used to prod an ox or other animals).

Bacchae by Euripides -
Dionysus
As a mortal I would sacrifice to the god rather than kick against the goads in anger (Line 795)

Helms states the Greek words used are the same, with the author of Luke using the same plural form of "goads".

Helms goes on to point out that in the same play believers of Dionysus find their chains snapping apart and the prison doors opening for them :

"The Bacchae whom you shut up, carrying them off and binding them in chains in the public prison, have gone off, freed from their bonds, and are gamboling in the meadows, calling to the god Bromius. The chains fell off their feet by themselves, and keys opened the doors without the aid of a human hand."( Bacchae - around line 445)

It shares some similarities with Luke's story of Peter escaping jail:

"Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He tapped Peter on the side and woke him, saying, "Get up quickly." And the chains fell off his wrists. The angel said to him, "Fasten your belt and put on your sandals." He did so. Then he said to him, "Wrap your cloak around you and follow me." Peter went out and followed him; he did not realize that what was happening with the angel's help was real; he thought he was seeing a vision. After they had passed the first and the second guard, they came before the iron gate leading into the city. It opened for them of its own accord, and they went outside and walked along a lane, when suddenly the angel left him." (Acts 12:7-10)

The last clue (for Helms) is the use of a very rare Greek verb. Luke uses it at Acts 5:39 (in the original Greek) "at war with God" [theomachoi]. Bacchae uses the same rare Greek verb in line 45. (Helms is actually adding to an idea presented by E. R. Dodd. Dodds wrote in 1960 that he felt the author of Luke was at least familiar with the play due to the verb usage and the allusions to Euripides' jail scenes.)

------
I've found several scholars pointing to Acts 9:1-2 as a clue the author of Luke created the conversion story:

"Meanwhile Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem."

The High Priest in Jerusalem did not have the authority to arrest Jews in foreign states and extradite them to Palestine. Luke is probably speculating based on I Maccabees 15:21 "Therefore if any scoundrels have fled to you from their country, hand them over to the high priest Simon, so that he may punish them according to their law."

Acts is beginning to look like a mish-mash of many sources.....

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hok, yeah I agree.

Greedy -- way cool. I think I'm going to re-read Acts this weekend with an eye toward that. I think you are right about the mishmash of sources. I hadn't read Jeremiah for a very long time (still haven't made it through Isaiah again when you were reading it, but that's next now), but that book looks like a major source for Mark, including the theme. There are several early references to the people or the leaders being stupid and not understanding God's real message or desires. I'm amazed by how much of this is a construction.

I need to check out the references (I'm reading another book now from a Jewish perspective, so it's very good on the prophets -- that's why I went back and read Jeremiah) but there may be a good explanation for why Paul took the message to the gentiles. It seems that there was a belief that when the resurrection begins and the kingdom is coming that gentiles will participate as well (like taking the message to the Ninehvites). I think Paul may have seen himself like a prophet -- the opening of Jeremiah is very similar to the opening of Galatians.

I wonder if there are references to other Greek plays in these texts. My guess is that it would only be in Luke/Acts if there were since whoever wrote those books was the most educated.

Whatever the answer, this certainly belies the claim -- Luke was the greatest of ancient historians.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

OK, here's another one that has me re-thinking some of the criteria for deciding what the original Jesus said and did.

I think the criterion of dissimilarity may be hogwash.

There are a few times when Jesus said things like "it is what comes out of your mouth not what goes in that makes you unclean" or "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath".

Doesn't that sound suspiciously like what someone in a Pauline community would want him to say?