FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-18-2005, 12:46 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

I seem to recall an argument that Luke's author not only had a copy of Matthew but was specifically writing to refute that account. I'll have to check but I think it was Helms in Who Wrote the Gospels?.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 04-18-2005, 12:58 PM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark)
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby
Not at all. Luke contradicts himself on the birthdate of Jesus. He places it during the census of Quirinius (Luke 2:2), but he also places it during the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5). That suggests that one of his traditions was from an earlier source. Matthew is an obvious candidate.

best,
Peter Kirby
Maybe I am losing my mind here but it seems to me that the Herod reference is concerning John the Baptist and then an unnumbered amount of days pass ( "Luke 1:23 And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.") and then we get to Jesus in the days of Quirinius. Am I missing something here?

Julian
Julian is offline  
Old 04-18-2005, 01:17 PM   #23
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby
Not at all. Luke contradicts himself on the birthdate of Jesus. He places it during the census of Quirinius (Luke 2:2), but he also places it during the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5). That suggests that one of his traditions was from an earlier source. Matthew is an obvious candidate.

best,
Peter Kirby
To be fair, Luke only explicitly places the birth of John the Baptist during the reign of Herod the Great. Mary is visited by an angel in the 6th month of Elizabeth's pregnancy and told that she will conceive a child but is not told when. Mary then goes to visit with Elizabeth, JBap is born and grows to manhood before Luke resumes the narrative with Mary and Joseph on the way to Bethlehem.

There is an indeterminate length of time between the birth of JBap and the birth of Jesus and there is no explicit indication that Mary was yet pregnant when she went to visit Elizabeth. I also think that GLuke implies a passage of time between the respective births numbering in the years by stating that JBap "grew up" before the book gives the details of Jesus' nativity.

I think Luke wanted to claim a relationship between Jesus and John but I don't think he necessarily intended to imply that their births were contemporaneous.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 04-18-2005, 01:41 PM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

I believe that when Mary visits Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-45), Mary was already pregnant. Elizabeth tells Mary that "Blessed is the fruit of your womb" and calls her "the mother of my lord." The alternative reading, that Mary became pregnant about ten years later, does not come from the text.

best,
Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 04-18-2005, 01:44 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MortalWombat
OK, let me see if I got this right if Luke used Matthew.

1. Mark wrote his Gospel first.

2. Matt copied nearly all of Mark, corrected the grammar a bit, and added what we call Q material, whether it was made up by him or was part of some other otherwise lost written or oral tradition.

3. Luke, having read Matt, decided that he needed to set things completely straight. He left in most of Matt's "Q" material and kept some other parts, like the passion, death, and resurrection, relatively intact, but changed a few other things like the birth narrative, maybe because it differed from the tradition that he was taught.

Do I have this right if we are considering that Luke used Matt?
I think you have the general idea of the Farrer theory. There is also the Three Source Hypothesis, which acknowledges Luke's use of Matthew (as well as a common written source between them). Here I have argued for Luke's use of Matthew, and I have not adjudicated between Farrer and 3SH.

best,
Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 04-18-2005, 02:11 PM   #26
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby
I believe that when Mary visits Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-45), Mary was already pregnant. Elizabeth tells Mary that "Blessed is the fruit of your womb" and calls her "the mother of my lord." The alternative reading, that Mary became pregnant about ten years later, does not come from the text.

best,
Peter Kirby
Elizabeth says that she knows that Mary will be "the mother of the Lord" because the baby jumped in her own womb. There is no explicit statement that Mary is pregnant at that time and the text even goes on to say that Mary stayed with Elizabeth another three months until JBap was born before returning home. Is that something she would do without telling her husband she was pregnant?

I will also point once again at Luke's description of John growing to manhood before he jumps to Mary and Joseph on the road to Bethlehem. Lk 2:5 states that Joseph was travelling with his wife ouse egkuo, "being pregnant." This is the first time Luke explicitly says that Mary was pregnant and he follows it up by saying that it was the time for her to give birth. If the reader was expected to understand that Mary was already pregnant, then Luke had no reason to repeat it in 2:5. He could have just said it was time to have the baby. The fact that he says she was pregnant and it was time for her to give birth suggests to me that Luke was not attempting to suggest that Mary was already pregnant in the first chapter.

YMMV of course, but I don't think Luke has to be made to contradict himself on this pont.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 04-18-2005, 02:22 PM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Elizabeth says that she knows that Mary will be "the mother of the Lord" because the baby jumped in her own womb. (This I know. But she calls her the mother of my Lord, she doesn't say that she will be. That you have to reword it shows the natural sense.)--Peter There is no explicit statement that Mary is pregnant at that time and the text even goes on to say that Mary stayed with Elizabeth another three months until JBap was born before returning home. Is that something she would do without telling her husband she was pregnant?

I will also point once again at Luke's description of John growing to manhood before he jumps to Mary and Joseph on the road to Bethlehem. Lk 2:5 states that Joseph was travelling with his wife ouse egkuo, "being pregnant." This is the first time Luke explicitly says that Mary was pregnant and he follows it up by saying that it was the time for her to give birth. If the reader was expected to understand that Mary was already pregnant, then Luke had no reason to repeat it in 2:5. He could have just said it was time to have the baby. The fact that he says she was pregnant and it was time for her to give birth suggests to me that Luke was not attempting to suggest that Mary was already pregnant in the first chapter. (There is no difficulty in supposing that Luke would state again, explicitly, that Mary is with child at the time of their trip.--Peter)

YMMV of course, but I don't think Luke has to be made to contradict himself on this pont.
I don't know if it has to be called a contradiction either. My best guess is that Luke has telescoped the time between the death of Herod and the census of Quirinius down to nothing. In any case, it is upon Julian to demonstrate otherwise, for his argument to be effective.

best,
Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 04-18-2005, 10:51 PM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby
Not at all. Luke contradicts himself on the birthdate of Jesus. He places it during the census of Quirinius (Luke 2:2), but he also places it during the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5). That suggests that one of his traditions was from an earlier source. Matthew is an obvious candidate.

best,
Peter Kirby
I am doubtful that this answers the question. IMO, Luke would only have blatantly contradicted Matthew if (1) It was so obvious that Matthew was wrong on the genealogies etc (2) Matthew was unknown to people.
Otherwise, it doesnt make sense that he would write to contradict Matthew with Matthew in his hand as he wrote - unless Luke is merely an anti-Matthean polemic.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 04-18-2005, 10:56 PM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman
I am doubtful that this answers the question. IMO, Luke would only have blatantly contradicted Matthew if (1) It was so obvious that Matthew was wrong on the genealogies etc (2) Matthew was unknown to people.
Otherwise, it doesnt make sense that he would write to contradict Matthew with Matthew in his hand as he wrote - unless Luke is merely an anti-Matthean polemic.
I don't think that this "contradiction" is a big deal. For one thing, it is perceivable only when one has external history at hand, namely that Herod died in 4 BC and that the census happened in AD 7. Would anyone like to argue that this would be common knowledge?

best,
Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 04-18-2005, 11:08 PM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby
I don't think that this "contradiction" is a big deal. For one thing, it is perceivable only when one has external history at hand, namely that Herod died in 4 BC and that the census happened in AD 7. Would anyone like to argue that this would be common knowledge?

best,
Peter Kirby
Julian had written:
Quote:
It seems strange to me that Luke would, Matthew in hand, write an entirely different, and completely contradictory, birthdate for Jesus. He may have had his own agenda for writing what he did but he must have known that people would be familiar with Matthew and that his contradictions would not stand up. Or was he counting on the his readership not being familiar with history?
Would your response be "I don't think that this "contradiction" is a big deal"?

By the way, now that I think about it, and wrt Rod Green's response at JM:
If Luke was fixing Matt, wouldnt we encounter, in Luke, phrases like "Some have said that XYZ...but that is not true: ABC is what actually happened"?

I think this would be a strong argument. Even today, when we read Meier writing anti-Crossan, he writes (for example). "It has been said that Nazareth was totally isolated. That is not true. Nazareth was actually close to the trade route that led to Damascus..."

I dont think its feasible that a writer could just hold a codex and write material that contradicts it and yet leave no traces in his writing, of his awareness that there exists material that contradicts what he is writing.

:huh:
Ted Hoffman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:01 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.