the_cave

Or, we can accept your explanation: Luke knew that Zacharias and Elizabeth did not have an ancestor named John. That is also valid. Is that what you think?

Ben C Smith

I know several Old Latin manuscripts do this. Are there any other even more exotic sources?

Ben.

Chili

Of course he knew or Zechariah would not have been burning incense in front of the whole assembly and Elizabeth would not know his name as the aroma of his prayer.

Chili

That Zechariah was rendered speechless equals the seclusion of Elizabeth. No more incense offering means no more visits to the sanctuary in the TOL and thus no more longing for deliverance of his people in anticipation of the promise made by Gabriel. It shows the essence of peace that come over the valley (netherworld) so that the passified Elizabeth could be the Being or fullness of Mary in the wine that Jesus made (Mary is water and Elizabeth is the substabce that turns water into wine . . . or the TOL would also be a blank slate at birth).

spin

I'm trying to fathom the NA27 indications. It has

a, b, l*; Ir^arm Or^{lat mss} Nic

"a" and "b" are the Latin mss. I guess l* is as well.

"Ir^arm" is an Armenian translation of Irenaeus.

"Or^{lat mss}" -- Latin mss of Origen.

"Nic" is Nicetas of Remesiana (given date as "[dagger]p. 414" -- which I guess means "died post 414CE").


spin

Rick Sumner

Huh. I just checked half a dozen commentaries on Lk.1, particular strange to me is that nobody seems to have asked this question. Two of the most influential commentary series, WBC and Hermeneia, are aware of the curiousity, but encourage the reader to ignore it--it's unimportant, and just a sign of Elizabeth's election and obedience.

I think you might be on to something, spin.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

andrewcriddle

IIUC "l" is Codex Rehdigeranus an Old Latin manuscript of the Gospels c 700 CE.

Andrew Criddle

spin

OK, it's starting to make more sense. The asterisk I discover indicates the original reading in a manuscript when the text has been corrected.

You need a specialized degree in order to use the book!


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
The meaning of a name is normally a key component of Infancy Narratives in the Jewish Bible with an emphasis on Revelation. "Luke" in general and specifically in her Infancy Narratives is moving emphasis from Revelation to supposed historical witness. Note that "Luke" does not provide any meaning to the name "Jesus" either. The main modification "Luke" is making to the standard Infancy narrative is moving it from a private revelation to a public witnessing. The significance of John's name is not that it has any special meaning but that neighbors and relatives witness that Elizabeth and Zechariah independently had the same name. Jesus' name doesn't have any significance, it's his birth that does. The Annunciation of the birth is made to Shepherds who witness that a child was just born in Bethlehem.

The priMary source for the JtB IN is the Hannah/Samuel IN. "Hannah" just happens to have the same Hebrew root as John/YoHann (Grace). If there was an original JtB IN that "Luke" used as a source it could have included the meaning of the name "John" = God & Grace but I don't think "Luke" would have chosen not to use the meaning of the name because of what it meant.

"Luke" may have been reacting to previous Gospels like "Matthew" here knowing that claims of the prediction of Jesus' name in the Jewish Bible, such as Isaiah 7:14, were weak or even wrong, and therefore exorcising the name meaning from her IN. And if Jesus' name had no significance here than John's should not either from a literary standpoint.



Joseph

spin

One of the primary sources. The other is the birth of Samson (especially the Pseudo-Philo version). It is the Samson story that provides the nazirite background clearly. In Pseudo-Philo it is the child who is supposed to avoid the fruit of the vine, just as JtB was supposed to. The original JtB story used the notion of nazirite from birth.

Hannah is important as the model for John's mother, being old and barren, distressed in barrenness, and by the will of god provided with a son who she would dedicate to god.

It is Hannah who makes the prayer of thanks that would be the model for Elisabeth's in the original JtB source, given by someone in the Lucan tradition to Mary. The annunciation that explained to her the name of her son has been taken away (and given to Mary in order to construct the Jesus infancy story through John's). That's probably why the text has Elisabeth providing the name "John", as Gabriel had given it to her in the original.


spin