Bernard Muller

Vinnie:
I explained that on this page, towards the end:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appa.html

I go over the whole thing with many details.

Best regards, Bernard

rlogan

This thread is all over the place.

We have among other things the claim Mrs. Luke knew of the destruction of the temple.

Luke 21 is so full of contradictory apocalyptics I can't make much out of it one way or the other.

Earthquakes, famine, pestilence, boiling seas, wars - basically armageddon. But also the son of man coming in a cloud with power and glory.

All within a generation.

This chapter is a bloody mess.

Vinnie

Bernard, I did not misrepresent you. I read each of your points. The statement i quoted i a summary statement., Yopu pointed out, through most of your points that Luke is pro-women. I asked if that was it in ligh of all that.

Your first example:

Bernard: a) Lk16:18 "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery."

Divorced women are never at fault! This is not the case in Mark's version:
Mk10:12 "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

The point of the short form of Jesus' divorce saying (Mt, Lk and Paul) is where divorce leads. Remarraige is a sin. Divorce usually led to the women remarrying for various reasons.

There is no indication that the divorced women is not at fault as well in Luke. You are overpressing some silence. The point of the account stems around the fact that remarriage is sin. Luke's case my have been known to be reversible. Since remarriage is sin the woman who remarries sins as well in that culture. This is an open issue and dedpends on how one reconstructs the background knowledge of the community.

But notice that by your own standards, Luke does not permit women to divorce men (since she doesn't mention it!) wheras Mark does. Is Mark written by a woman as well, possibly the unknown one who annointed Jesus? She is far more egalitarian here than is Luke as Mark applies the divorce logion to women who divorce as well.

Bernard [b]b) Lk21:16-18 "You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death. And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But [B]not a hair of your head shall be lost [last sentence only in GLuke!]."
Let's compare this with:
1Co11:6b " ... if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head."

I'm sorry, what on earth do these passages have to do with one another?????? How do they demonstrate Luke was pro-women. The saying is luke was given to Jesus discples and deals with them experiencing harshship and suffering. Paul is throwing a hissy fit and telling women how they should maintain their hair.


If Luke was a Jew writing inside Palestine this might actually have some weight behind it. Does Josephus apply to how women were viewed in all of the first century Medditerranean lands--predominantly Jewish or not?

d) Lk10:39-42 "She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!" "Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.""
Only in GLuke is this (non theological) charming story advocating it is better for a woman to listen to the "word" (or just plainly relax) rather than doing house work. And Jesus says it himself!

Actually many thinks the account teaches the lesson that heeding the word of Jesus is the important thing. This lesson is said to be harmonious with the earlier answer about the love of God and neighbor as basic observances necessary for eternal life. It shows that what is required is not complicate. Obeying Jesus and eternal life are central here, not women.

I am noticing a pattern here. Every time a women is mentioned it becomes the center of your exegesis in Luke. And what do you define "theology" as so that you call this account non-theological? It looks theological to me.


e) In this passage found only in GLuke, feminine sensuality is overwhelming:
Lk7:44b-47a "You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven--for she loved much."

There is no explicit emphasis on gender. The emphasis is on the action and faith of the woman. Woman are popular in Luke--more popular than in other works. We agree on this, but how does this transfer into Luke was a woman?


f) And even if Jesus does not appear to have been fond of his mother, "Luke" found a way to remind the readers about her:
Lk11:27 "As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.""

Luke also esteemed the twelve more since he tones down Mark's portrait. Was Luke a member of the twelve? Luke likes Maray (see the infancy narrative).

But have you read the next verse of luke? " Jesus replies with "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."

I am no expert in Greek but the english NIV version has a glaring RATHER.

g) Lk8:1b-3 "The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means."
Let's compare this with the parallel passage in Mark's gospel:
Mk15:40b-41a "Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs."

You have NOT shown that Luke is not undermining Mary as did Mark and John by making her a crazed demoniac. Yes the women supported Jesus and do have a prominent role in Luke. It does not logically follow that Luke was a woman.

h) In a passage which appears only in GLuke, Jesus is very compassionate for a widow who lost her mean of support:
Lk7:12-15 "... a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother; and she was a widow. ... When the Lord saw her, He had compassion on her and said to her, "Do not weep." Then He came and touched the open coffin, ... And He said, "Young man, I say to you, arise." So he who was dead sat up and began to speak. And He presented him to his mother."

And only a woman author would mention a compassionate Jesus concerned for a broke, old woman with no means of supporting herself ????


i) Influential women are also indicated in 'Acts' (written by the same author). Let's notice that the women are mentioned before the men:
Ac13:50a "But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city"
Ac17:4 "Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women."
Ac17:12 "Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men."

Normally name order is important so this may be a good argument but how important is "specific group or gender order"?

So we have women are prominent in Luke-Acts. But how much more prominent are men?

And it may be that women are mentioned twice (or more?) before men. How many times are they not mentioned first?

Do women being more popular i9n this text than other misognyst texts and them being listed a couple times before men allow us to say, with a high degree of confidence, Luke was a woman. I think not.

And it is sensationalism as its a woman being posited and the fact that nothing substantial can be offered in justification of this. Even a collective argument based upon all your points is very tenuous.

Vinnie

Vinnie

If Jesus predicted his return beforehand the woman should know it was going to occur just as the men should. After all, they got the bonus of witnessing all those spiffy miracles of Jesus and hearing his prediictions.

So much? Why don't you tally up and see how much material is about mem amd how much is about women.

And the irony meter is buzzing as I wouldn't be the first person in this thread to imagine stuff about women in Luke that is not actually in the text.

That woman is not named and there is no reason from Mk14:9 to have her composing a gospel. What she would be remembered for, according to the verse, is preparing Jesus' body for burial.

yes but in the Gospel of Mark only one person understands before Jesus dies: this unnamed woman. Jesus constantly predicts what will happen, he'll die and rise, he then performs feeding miracles and all sorts of spiffy miracles, yet it is this one WOMAN who understands out of almost everyone.

Also, in the divorce statement Mark is thoroughly woman friendly and egalitarian in that he mentions where women can divorce their husbands.

And though Mark denigrates the woman some at the end, this is nothing like what she subjects the MALE apostles to all throughout the Gospel!

And you didn't address this but Acts 1 is explicit in its expression of male dominance:

"'May another [MAN] take his place of leadership.'[5] 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the MEN who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

A man is to become witness.

"23So they proposed two men:"

Two men, not a woman and a man or this or that.

Acts 1 smooths over and reasserts male dominance and the leadership group over what the ending of GLuke leaves open. See Crossan for more info.

Vinnie

graymouser

So, uhm, all issues of internal dating and women writing books and such aside...that there is no attestation of the NT writings before 100 CE is a valid assertion, right?

I did not think the question would get so hairy (and so tangential).

-Wayne

Vinnie

Clement attests to a work of Paul, then Ignatius might attest to some of Mattew (by 110 C.E.) and then Papias to Mark by 130 C.E. There is no external attestation in the first century aside from Clement unless ytou count Matthew and Luke using Mark.

All the external attetation in the 2d century results in the Gospels being placed no later than early 2d century. Many use internal arguments from there. For example, it is sometime said:

The Jerusalem centered outlook does not match the outlook of known second century Christian literature.

For Asia Minor and Epheus, the author of Acts seems to know only the church structure of presbyters. No sign is shown of having one bishop in a church so clearly attested by Ignatius (110 C.E.).

The author of Luke-Acts shows none or very little evidence of any sort of direct dependence on the letters of Paul which wer gather ca 100 C.E.

Luke shows no knowledge of events later than the first century. We cannot maintaint the author would have supressed knowledge of recent events.

No reference to the persectuon of Christians under Domitian (ca 93-94).

The only reason offered for dating Luke after 90 C.E. is that he was possibly dependent upon Antiq. But even here scholars will not usually stray past 110. Most are also not convinced that Luke knew Josephus.

Vinnie

graymouser

Vinnie:

Ah. Could the Ignatius material be a part of a proto-Gospel source, or is it definitively GMatt? I'm not familiar with the early apologists, so forgive me if this question is naive.

-Wayne

Vinnie

I said "might". There is an obvious (in my eyes) instance of Matthean redactional material in one spot of Ignatius. But given only one, I have to wonder if some sort of scribal practice did not result in this single instance? Matthew was the most popular and most widely known. Various readings were assimilated (corrupted) to take on Matthean readings.

But still, as it appears it would suggest Matthew indirectly influenced it. It is also supported by the "embarrasment" criterion. Jesu' baptism was heavily apologized accross the board, ergo, we expect Ignatius to apologize it a pinch. Thus I think the point stands and Matthew possibly did at least indirectly influence this little creed or section of Smyrneans 1.

Of course many here will assert Ignatius' letters are later forgeries. I do not accept this position.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Crossan wrote the following on this material:


Finally, there are the two units in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, both of semicredal character, giving, as William Schoedel put it, "lists of the events of salvation in the ministry of Jesus" (8).

Our Lord . . . is truly of the family of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin, baptized by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him . . . (Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 1:1)

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was carried in the womb by Mary according to God's plan-of the seed of David and of the holy Spirit-who was born and baptized that by his suffering he might purify the water. (Ignatius, To the Ephesians 18:2)

Those texts give two divergent explanations for Jesus' acceptance of John's baptism. The one in the first text has to be dependent on Matthew since it uses "righteousness," a redactional emphasis concerning John in both Matthew 3:14-15 and 21:32. But since, as Helmut Koester has argued, there are no other equally clear indications that Ignatius had read Matthew, it is best to consider this an indirect dependency on which the creed used by Ignatius was already influenced by Matthew's apologetic gloss (1957:59). The explanation in the second text is, in William Schroedel's words, "closer to Ignatius' own theological world" (222). It links Jesus' baptism and passion together mythologically in that Jesus purifies the depths of the water by his baptism and the depths of the earth by his burial.

Vorkosigan

Assuming of course that Ig depends on Matt. But logically dependency could run in either direction. Matthew might well have borrowed that comment from Ig. Or, as Detering has argued, Ignatius is a late forgery.

Vorkosigan