Solo

Maybe you fell for something there, Abe. Jan Wojcik outs Luke's narrative gnosticism and the 'eyewitnesses' symbolism, pointing out that the eyesight of the two guys who walk with him to Emaus was manipulated (24:16) so they did not recognize Jesus. If this was so, then obviously Luke meant some very special 'eyewitnessing'.

You may want to read his 'Road to Emaus' (or via: amazon.co.uk); great book.

Best,
Jiri

ApostateAbe

There are all kinds of bizarre explanations that you can speculate for any written evidence that you can imagine, but I am a believer in accepting the most plausible explanations that are plain and obvious on the face. I think of the gospels much like I would think of other historical sources--they may be right, they may be wrong, but the authors generally don't mean much more than what the words are.

Solo

What do you mean by 'bizzare explanations' ? Was the eyesight of the two characters manipulated in 24:16 or not ? Do you accept what the text says ?

24:16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. RSV

But their eyes were holden that they should not
know him. (KJV)


So if the eyesight can be manipulated (by God) so you only see Jesus when you deserve to see him or when he wants you to see him, how can you claim eyewitnessing means reliable bona fide historical evidence ?

Where do you see any speculation in what Wojcik says ?

Jiri

ApostateAbe

The speculation, or I should say the level of improbability, is to make sense of Luke 1 by going to Luke 24, seeing something that God may have done in Luke 24, and applying that same behavior of God where it is not found explicitly in Luke 1. It is almost purely ad hoc speculation. If Luke 1:1-4 did not make sense, then maybe that is what we would need to do. Instead, if we can make perfect sense of the meaning of Luke 1:1-4 by reading Luke 1:1-4, then that is what we do. The narrator tells "Theophilus" that he wants him to believe the things contained in his gospel because the narrator personally investigated and gained the information that came from the eyewitnesses. If we apply the speculative behavior of God in Luke 24:16 to Luke 1:1-4, then the passage suddenly becomes a huckuva lot stranger. Why in God's name would we do that?

There is a "golden rule of hermeneutics" that I think is sensible, and it is, "If plain sense makes common sense [or good sense], then seek no other sense." It is easy to get carried away with wild speculations about the meaning of any given passage. That is the behavior of thousands of authors who read the Bible and find exactly what they already believed about the world. That is not us. Just try to make the most probable sense of what the authors intended, the same way you would read any other historical writing.

Solo

There is also a rule called "lectio difficilor"...at any rate; this is a useless debate....I don't see you responding to the issues raised.

For the record, and other readers of this exchange, IMO the 'autoptai' in Lk 1:2 refers to the sensorium of euphoric grandeur in which one receives the risen Jesus and the terror of the passion, and the 'ministers of the word' to the access to the oracle of the Lord. Luke simply says he is creating a new collection of previously published accounts of such reports and his own sources.

Jiri

ApostateAbe

Jiri, I know that you are out to find the truth and the most sensible theories. So am I. I have always noticed that you interpret the Bible in ways that seem bizarre to me. You have justified your reasoning with "lectio difficilor," and I think maybe I finally get it (maybe). You believe that "lectio difficilor" means that you should be choosing the more difficult interpretations. If so, then I am afraid that you have it wrong. "Lectio difficilor" is a rule that applies to more specific occasions, where you have two different manuscripts copies of what should be the same passage, but the wording or phrasing is different between the two. If one of the two manuscripts has phrasing that is more "difficult," then that is the most probable original writing, because a scribe would be inclined to change the wording to be more sensible and less difficult. The rule does NOT apply to interpreting just a single passage. You most certainly should NOT choose the more difficult interpretation--just the opposite, in fact. The "golden rule" that I brought up before is not just appropriate for interpreting religious scriptures, but for any writing that exists--take the plainest, simplest, common, most plausible and expected interpretation. I don't mean to be aggressive with this. I mean to help. Thanks.

JonA

Why such a convoluted reading when the more straight-forward (thereby least-assumptive) interpretation is that Luke is claiming his sources to be ultimately derived from eyewitness accounts?

Do we need to believe Luke's information to ultimately come from eyewitnesses? No; but it certainly seems to be what Luke is claiming.

Jon

Solo

In other words, you are not going to read Wojcik's book and you are not bothered by the intent of Lk 24:16.

My reading seems convoluted and you prefer the least-assumptive. Hey, I am not bothered by that, would you believe ?

Jiri

Solo

Really ? spins thinks so too, so I am encouraged

I did not mean "lectio difficilor" textually, I meant it in an interpretative analogy. Yes, you interpret in the simplest way - but not where that kind of interpretation is simplistic because it belies the text itself.

You are welcome, though I am unsure what you were thanking me for.

Jiri

JonA

Luke 24 has nothing to do with Luke 1.

Of course you're not required to reply to challenges to your claims. I can live with that.

Jon