Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-07-2008, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

All I can do is repeat my question from the first post.

Is there a work of fiction , ideally from the ancient world, that addresses the reader in such a manner?

To my knowledge, the answer -- which both Toto and Michael seem to have been avoiding giving you --is no.

But the expert in this matter is Loveday Alexander. I suggest you write her about it.

She may be reached at l.c.alexander at sheffield.ac.uk

Jeffrey

Solo · 04-07-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

This introduction seems to be purporting to give a an historical account, to me at least. But perhaps not? Any thoughts anyone?

Jan Wojcik (The Road to Emmaus (or via: amazon.co.uk), Purdue U. Press 1989) disputes the orthodox view of Luke as a straightforward chronicler of historical events. Based on the analysis of resurrected Jesus playing tricks with the "perception" of his disciples ("holding their eyes") while they walk to Emmaus, Wojcik argues persuasively that Luke was self-consciously gnostic and well aware that what he presents are his own metaphorical tools.

Of course, this cannot be read by taking the prologue in isolation from the rest of the text. Luke might have consciously used the rhetorical dedication to hint at the allegorical nature of his history, or he may not. We won't get help guessing one way or another by pointing to similar prologues. What is important is to correlate the autoptes (the seeing Jesus with one's own eyes) in Lk 1:2 to the "tricks" (as Wojcik puts it) Jesus plays with their sight (i.e. hinting that his resurrection is not "visible" except to faith in a para-normal mind state) in Lk 24:16. as the adepts are walking to Emmaus on the third day after the crucifixion.

Jiri

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-07-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

This introduction seems to be purporting to give a an historical account, to me at least. But perhaps not? Any thoughts anyone?

Jan Wojcik (The Road to Emmaus (or via: amazon.co.uk), Purdue U. Press 1989) disputes the orthodox view of Luke as a straightforward chronicler of historical events.

Where can this "orthodox view" be found? Who among Lukan scholars holds or propounds the view that Luke is a "straightforward chronicler of historical events"?

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle · 04-07-2008, 09:52 AM

This orthodox view is the view of any evangelical, for example

http://www.antiqbook.co.uk/boox/rosema/37398.shtml

It is only "extremists" like the former Bishop of Durham and heretical academics who question historicity.

Solo · 04-07-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Jan Wojcik (The Road to Emmaus (or via: amazon.co.uk), Purdue U. Press 1989) disputes the orthodox view of Luke as a straightforward chronicler of historical events.

Where can this "orthodox view" be found? Who among Lukan scholars holds or propounds the view that Luke is a "straightforward chronicler of historical events"?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey, why don't you read the book instead ?

Wojcik, in addressing the "novelty" of his approach, says: “any proposal for a new method of reading the Christian scriptures has to engage the question why it has not been used before. Perhaps it is because the tradition of biblical scholarship has suffered from what Whitehead calls the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness”. In order to deny the validity of any Gnostic imagination or thought in any document considered to be orthodox, it was necessary to claim that scriptural texts referred to literal facts.” p.9

Jiri

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-07-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

This orthodox view is the view of any evangelical, for example

http://www.antiqbook.co.uk/boox/rosema/37398.shtml

This points me nowhere.

Quote:

It is only "extremists" like the former Bishop of Durham and heretical academics who question historicity.

Really? You obviously (and typically) have not read much in Lukan scholarship and Acts studies, even evangelical ones. The idea that Luke is not a straightforward chronicler of events is mainstream and has been for sometime.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-07-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Where can this "orthodox view" be found? Who among Lukan scholars holds or propounds the view that Luke is a "straightforward chronicler of historical events"?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey, why don't you read the book instead ?

Wojcik, in addressing the "novelty" of his approach, says: “any proposal for a new method of reading the Christian scriptures has to engage the question why it has not been used before. Perhaps it is because the tradition of biblical scholarship has suffered from what Whitehead calls the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness”. In order to deny the validity of any Gnostic imagination or thought in any document considered to be orthodox, it was necessary to claim that scriptural texts referred to literal facts.” p.9

Jiri

Thanks for the recommendation. But I fail to see how this answers my question, let alone speaks to it. I ask again: Who among Lukan scholars holds or propounds the view that Luke is a "straightforward chronicler of historical events"?

Do you know or not?

And who is it among contemporary Lukan scholars who claims that "scriptural texts referred to literal facts"?

Jeffrey

Toto · 04-07-2008, 11:16 AM

There is a review of Wojcik here in a Lutheran publication (near the end - search for his name.)

Quote:

Finally, there is Wojcik's fascinating little book entitled The Road to Emmaus: Reading Luke's Gospel. The word is "fascinating" because, while Tannehill and Moessner teach within seminary contexts, Wojcik writes as a professor of humanities at Clarkson University. Wojcik's analysis of Luke's Gospel is not bound by any theological presuppositions, and his interpretation applies literary-critical techniques used in the interpretation of English literature to the interpretation of Scripture without being bound in any way to an analogy of faith. It is an attempt not only to offer a fresh interpretation of Luke, but to discredit and, in some sense, ridicule orthodox interpretations through the centuries. . . .

. . . In chapter two Wojcik offers what he calls "Strong New Readings," where he demonstrates how Luke learned his literary methods from the gnostics. Wojcik is not ignorant of the gnostic interpreters or the orthodox ones, as he demonstrates in the third chapter entitled "Critical Responses to Luke's Narrative Gnosticism." Wojcik is critical not only of the orthodox interpreters, but also of the higher critics and their father Schleiermacher. . .

Wojcik even acknowledges that the analogy of faith is important to the interpretation of the text. He says of Joseph Fitzmyer, who wrote the two-volume Anchor Bible commentary on Luke (p. 102):

The reason why even a most discriminating biblical scholar such as Fitzmyer will also affirm faith is, of course, because he has faith. The reason why he will use the form of modem learnedcommentary in making his biblical interpretation is because its structure implicitly encourages a faithful affirmation. The minute discrimination of language leads logically to a "general understanding."

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-07-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is a review of Wojcik here in a Lutheran publication (near the end - search for his name.)

Quote:

Finally, there is Wojcik's fascinating little book entitled The Road to Emmaus: Reading Luke's Gospel. The word is "fascinating" because, while Tannehill and Moessner teach within seminary contexts, Wojcik writes as a professor of humanities at Clarkson University. Wojcik's analysis of Luke's Gospel is not bound by any theological presuppositions, and his interpretation applies literary-critical techniques used in the interpretation of English literature to the interpretation of Scripture without being bound in any way to an analogy of faith. It is an attempt not only to offer a fresh interpretation of Luke, but to discredit and, in some sense, ridicule orthodox interpretations through the centuries. . . .

. . . In chapter two Wojcik offers what he calls "Strong New Readings," where he demonstrates how Luke learned his literary methods from the gnostics. Wojcik is not ignorant of the gnostic interpreters or the orthodox ones, as he demonstrates in the third chapter entitled "Critical Responses to Luke's Narrative Gnosticism." Wojcik is critical not only of the orthodox interpreters, but also of the higher critics and their father Schleiermacher. . .

Wojcik even acknowledges that the analogy of faith is important to the interpretation of the text. He says of Joseph Fitzmyer, who wrote the two-volume Anchor Bible commentary on Luke (p. 102):

The reason why even a most discriminating biblical scholar such as Fitzmyer will also affirm faith is, of course, because he has faith. The reason why he will use the form of modem learnedcommentary in making his biblical interpretation is because its structure implicitly encourages a faithful affirmation. The minute discrimination of language leads logically to a "general understanding."

How on earth does he know this about Fitzmyer?

And where does Fitzmyer ever say that Luke is "a straightforward chronicler of historical events" or that he believes that scriptural texts always refer to literal facts?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey

Toto · 04-07-2008, 11:43 AM

Maybe he has read Fitzmyer?

I gather you are trying to force interpretation into two boxes: absolutely literal history and everything else. But I think the more common debate is between those who think that there is some historical basis to Luke-Acts, and those who think that it is an invention. Fitzmyer would certainly fit in the first category.

And the purpose of the OP is to examine the question of whether Luke is fictional, based on the prologue.

Fitzmyer has just written The Interpretation of Scripture: In Defense of the Historical-Critical Method (or via: amazon.co.uk). He is also the author of Acts of the Apostles (or via: amazon.co.uk) in which he disagrees with Pervo's conclusion that Acts is a historical novel at p. 49.

He has also written A Christological Cathechism: New Testament Answers (or via: amazon.co.uk), where on p 10 he argues against a naive fundamentalism and reassures the faithful that "No serious New Testament interpreter, however, would try today to maintain that the gospel stories about Jesus are fabrications out of whole cloth." How can he assert that? Is it because he refuses to take such interpreters seriously?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-07-2008, 09:52 AM	#34
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	This orthodox view is the view of any evangelical, for example http://www.antiqbook.co.uk/boox/rosema/37398.shtml It is only "extremists" like the former Bishop of Durham and heretical academics who question historicity.

04-07-2008, 11:43 AM	#40
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Maybe he has read Fitzmyer? I gather you are trying to force interpretation into two boxes: absolutely literal history and everything else. But I think the more common debate is between those who think that there is some historical basis to Luke-Acts, and those who think that it is an invention. Fitzmyer would certainly fit in the first category. And the purpose of the OP is to examine the question of whether Luke is fictional, based on the prologue. Fitzmyer has just written The Interpretation of Scripture: In Defense of the Historical-Critical Method (or via: amazon.co.uk). He is also the author of Acts of the Apostles (or via: amazon.co.uk) in which he disagrees with Pervo's conclusion that Acts is a historical novel at p. 49. He has also written A Christological Cathechism: New Testament Answers (or via: amazon.co.uk), where on p 10 he argues against a naive fundamentalism and reassures the faithful that "No serious New Testament interpreter, however, would try today to maintain that the gospel stories about Jesus are fabrications out of whole cloth." How can he assert that? Is it because he refuses to take such interpreters seriously?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.