Steven Carr

Here is Luke 13:31-35

31At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, "Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you."

32He replied, "Go tell that fox, 'I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.' 33In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

34"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 35Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'

Not one word about a cross, or the forthcoming death on a cross or resurrection of Jesus.

And here is Bock's summary.

http://blog.bible.org/bock/node/283

'"Q", a lost sayings collection extracted from Matthew and Luke, made no reference to a death and resurrection and can be shown to have had no Jesus at its roots: roots which were ultimately non-Jewish. The Q community preached the kingdom of God, and its traditions were eventually assigned to an invented founder who was linked to the heavenly Jesus of Paul in the Gospel of Mark.

Evaluation: The claim that this material lacks any reference to the cross is overstated. There are discipleship sayings about the cross or coming suffering that these two gospels alone share (Luke 13:31-35 --- Matt 23:37-39).'

There's scholarship for you.

Only a true scholar can find a reference to a cross and a resurrection in Luke 13:31-35

But it has a 'third day' in it, so it must be a reference to the resurrection.

After all, no early Christian could have read a reference to 'third' and 'day' without linking it to a resurrection.

After criticising Doherty for talking about midrashic elements in the NT, Bock appears to be doing Midrash himself, and talking a 'third day' reference and producing a resurrection on the third day from it.

If Bock can do that, then why could early Christians not have done that?

Clivedurdle

Interestingly it is Herod who wants to kill him!:devil1:

But remember this was written de facto and therefore the third day reference arguably is a correct inference - showing Jesus predicting his death!

And therefore proving he is the son of god.

Oh Lord what must I do to be saved?

But hang on, have I not just shown the Q hypothesis to be wrong? What we are looking at in Luke is someone embellishing a story to make it self fulfilling!

Is it not normal in a detective plot to put in little titbits? Especally where everyone knows the plot?

"Third day".

Steven Carr

It predicts his death on the third day.

Clivedurdle

Very similar to some of the plot messes for example in Star Trek!

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven,

You're correct that Bock is doing midrash, but also, I am not sure that Jesus is predicting his death on the Third day.

13:31At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, "Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you."

32 He replied, "Go tell that fox, 'I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.' 33In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

This has to read in light of Luke 13:22 which locates Jesus outside of Jerusalem: Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem.

Jesus is outside of Jerusalem and Herod sends him a message to leave this place and go someplace else. Jesus tells him that he will continue his work for the next three days. Jesus' goal, whatever it is, will be completed in three days. He must/will keep going on with his work "today and tomorrow and the next day" because "no prophet can die outside Jerusalem."

Jesus' answer to Herod's demand that he get out of town is to say that he will only leave after his work is completed in three days (he will work "today, tomorrow and the next day"). Jesus feels safe because prophets only die in Jerusalem and he is not in Jerusalem. Herod can't touch him.

The main idea seems to be that Jesus is declaring himself a prophet. He is classifying himself as a prophet and thus someone whom Herod cannot kill outside of Jerusalem.

We may assume that the saying was showing the cleverness of the Jesus character and why he was not afraid of Herod. We cannot assume that the original audience for this saying would have seen it as a prediction that he would die in Jerusalem. If the audience knew that Herod had executed the Jesus outside of Jerusalem, then the saying would answer the question, "Why did the Jesus not flee when Herod gave him three days warning." The answer is that Jesus did not believe that Herod would break tradition. The point would be that Jesus was devout and followed tradition, while Herod did not. It is also certainly an attack against Jerusalem.

On the other hand, if the audience knew that the Jesus did die in Jerusalem, then the saying would be emphasizing the prophetic abilities of the Jesus. He knew that he could not die because he was outside Jerusalem.

The passage either is intended to show the cleverness of Jesus in figuring out that he was safe to disobey Herod due to Jewish tradition in general (prophets were attacked only in Jerusalem) or intended to show that Jesus knew of his impending death in Jerusalem. Without access to the original material, it is hard to judge one way or the other. Either way, there is no reason to believe that there is a reference to any crucifixion tale here.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay