Most Excellent Theophilus

MET Moving

2008-08-11T22:40:00.000-07:00

I've moved over to Wordpress for blogging: http://mostexcellenttheophilus.wordpress.com/. I've tried to keep the same 'look,' though the Wordpress page is a little more neat. I do not intend to copy anything from this blog to the new one, so this one will stay up. The new blog will simply be a continuation of this blog. I just prefer the Wordpress format over Blogger's. And since I don't have many visitors here (so it seems), I didn't see the move as that detrimental. Let me know what you think, if you happen to stop by here and there. Thanks for reading.

Lee

The Prodigal Parable

2008-08-08T06:58:00.000-07:00

I have been looking into the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15.11-32. I am now fairly certain that the younger son represents the (Sadducean) priesthood, and the older son represents the Pharisees for the following reasons:

1. Though not so depicted in the Gospels, the Pharisees were "a lay movement in competition with the priesthood" ("Pharisees," ABD, 5.289).

2. The Pharisees were known for their strict observance of the Law. The older son viewed himself as a faithful Law-observer (15.29).

3. The older son was "in the field." E. P. Sanders (Judaism: Practice and Belief, 181) says, "Let us recall that priests and Levites were forbidden to work the land.... They were not tied to farms, as many Pharisees were...." So a priest or Levite (and presumably Sadducee) was not permitted to be "in the field." The Pharisees were known for having such occupations.

4. The younger son is said to have been "dead" but is now "alive" (15.24, 32). This is a picture of Jesus' resurrection. The irony here, like in RM&L, is that the Sadducees denied the resurrection; but when Jesus is raised again, he becomes the new eschatological high priest and reconsecrates the priesthood to God (cf. Lk24.50-53). Therefore, the younger son in the parable undergoes a change of heart. This is the change in the priesthood from a Saducean perspective to Jesus' perspective. The "father" describes the return of the priesthood in terms of resurrection. And he is addressing the older son, representing the Pharisees, showing them that this new priest is different from the established priesthood of their day.

5. The younger son is clothed with new clothing upon his return. This is reminiscent of the re-clothing of Joshua the high priest in Zech3.1-5. Interestingly, the high priest of Zech3 is named "Joshua," the equivalent of "Jesus." If it can be shown that Jesus is meant as the one bringing the priesthood back from the Sadducean demise of the pig-pen, then it isn't so ironic that Luke's Jesus is alluding to a story about JOSHUA the high priest as found in Zech3.

6. This might be another instance in which Luke lets his background story inadvertantly shine through. Note that in the parable the older son complains that the father "never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my FRIENDS" (15.29). In Zech3.8, the angel of the Lord says to Joshua, "Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your FRIENDS who sit before you, for they are men of good omen...."

7. The older son complains that the younger son had "devoured [the father's] living with the harlots" (15.30). This was a common complaint concerning the priests (e.g., TLevi 14.5-6). The Pharisees (the older son) was at odds with the Sadducees (the younger son) and would have made such complaints about them, demonstrating their illegitimacy.

Copyrighted 2008

Malachi and Luke

2008-07-31T17:56:00.000-07:00

I have argued here that Luke is writing to Theophilus the high priest of 37-41CE. Because Luke seems to have priestly interests, I gave the book of Malachi a once-over last night, for it was written against the priests. There seems to be good evidence that Luke uses Malachi at times (aside from the citation of Mal4.6 in Lk1.17).

Luke 18 particularly is shot through with allusions of Malachi 3.5, which reads thus:

"Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be a swift witness

against the sorcerers,

against the adulterers,

against those who swear falsely,

against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the orphan,

against those who thrust aside the sojourner,

and those do not fear me,

says the Lord of hosts."

In Luke 18.1-8, we find a defense of WIDOWS and the condemnation of those who NEITHER FEARED GOD nor regarded man. In 18.9-14, we find an implicit denouncement of the Pharisaic haughtiness regarding ADULTERY and EXTORTION. In 18.18-30, we find Jesus reciting the Laws regarding ADULTERY, STEALING, and BEARING FALSE WITNESS.

One cannot help but wonder why Jesus only names the five Laws he names in 18.20. Malachi 1.6 reads, "A son honors his father...." I wonder if this is perhaps why Jesus is including the Law to honor father and mother. (Of course, there is no mention of murder in Malachi, yet Jesus includes the prohibition to kill.) The other Laws mentioned by Jesus find root in Malachi 3.5. I believe Luke's Jesus has Malachi in mind here.

Additionally, the issue of the SOJOURNER is taken up in Luke 10.29-37, the story of the good Samaritan. Defenses of WIDOWS appear in Luke 20.46-47; 21.1-4. SORCERY might be addresed by Jesus in Luke 11.14-26. And the issue of ADULTERY also emerges in Luke 16.18.

Further allusions may be included:

Mal1.6 // Lk6.46
Mal3.1 // Lk7.27 (citation)
Mal4.2 // Lk1.78 (so Marshall, Luke, 94)

Finally, I read somewhere that the Jewish Targum identifies Ezra as the author of Malachi. I must find the reference. Jewish tradition apparently recognized Malachi's relation to Ezra and Nehemiah.

A Progression in Luke's Writing

2008-07-17T19:46:00.000-07:00

Today I noticed the similarities between Luke 14.11 and 18.14. The Greek is nearly exact: hoti pas ho hupswn eauton tapeinwthedetai kai ho tapeinwn eauton hupswthesetai (14.11; cf. 18.14, where kai is replaced with de): "Because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, and the one humbling himself will be exalted."

I immediately considered the possibility that the two pericopes of Luke 14.7-11 and 18.1-14 are describing the same thing, or that Luke's Jesus is making the same point regarding the same people. But I was drawn away from that venture by another proposal. (I intend to investigate such a possibility very soon.)

These statements are of a certain kind, of a certain form. I continued searching the rest of Luke's Gospel and noticed a kind of trend regarding such forms. In Luke 8.18, we find the statement, "For to him who had will more be given, and from him who has not, even what he thinks he has will be taken away." So far as I can tell, this is the first statement of this kind, using this rhetoric, in Luke's Gospel. From there, I moved forward through the Gospel looking for similar rhetorical structures. I found these (including 8.18, 14.11 and 18.14):

8.18: For to him who had will more be given, and from him who has not, even what he thinks he has will be taken away.

9.5: Wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.

10.6: If a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you.

10.16: He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

11.23: He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

12.48: Everyone to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

13.30: Some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.

14.11: Because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, and the one humbling himself will be exalted.

16.18: Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

18.14: Because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, but the one humbling himself will be exalted.

20.18: Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken into pieces; upon whomever it falls, it will crish him.

(If I have forgotten any similar cases, please make them known.)

It seems to me that Luke is moving from a more primitive rhetorical form to a more developed one. Each of these cases is 'tighter' in verbal form than the previous case (with the lone exception of the 8.18, which looks much closer to the last four verbally that any one case between them.) I intend to study these passages in order alongside the other Synoptics, and even alongside John. But, should there be something to this, two things emerge:

1. Richard Anderson has suggested that Luke uses a "step progression method" in telling his story (http://kratistostheophilos.blogspot.com/2007/01/step-progression-method.html). Perhaps he is right, and this development of rhetorical form might help establish that.

2. If Luke is developing these sayings as he goes along, making the form stronger and tighter, perhaps this is a reflection of a free mind and a free hand. If so (which I'm not sure can be proven), perhaps this is evidence that Luke wrote without depending on a written source. If it can be shown that Luke's redition of these statements, when taken together, is less developed compared to the other Synoptics, perhaps this is a step toward strengthening Lucan priority.

The Sceva Episode (Part 2)

2008-07-17T06:14:00.000-07:00

There is some mystery behind the Sceva episode in Acts 19. I believe the narrative of 1 Samuel 2 about Eli and his sons, Hophni and Phinehas lie behind the pericope.

Recall that Hophni and Phinehas were corrupt (1Sam2.12-17, 27-36). The LXX says that Hophni and Phinehas were "worthless men." The Hebrew text reads "sons of Belial". On Belial, the Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD) suggests that there may be a play on words between Belial and Baal, "which would suggest the evilness of the two sons" (ABD, "Hophni", 3.285). These two brothers had "turned away from YHWH" [Heb.] / "no regard for the Lord" [LXX] (1Sam2.12).

I was immediately reminded of Jesus' teaching about Beelzebul in Luke 11.15ff. I. H. Marshall (NIGTC, Luke): "The name [Beelzebul] does not occur in Jewish literature, but appears to represent the same figure as Belial in the intertestamental literature. 'Beel' is clearly equivalent to 'Baal', i.e. 'lord'. The second part of the word has been traced to ...'house, high place, temple' (iKi8.13; Is63.15), giving 'lord of the house' (cf. Mt10.25 so Gaston, with reference to Jesus' claim to be 'lord of the temple')."

So, Fitzmyer (AB, Luke): "[T]he use of Beelzebul [in Lk11.15] and Satan in v. 18 suggests that the former has already become merely an alternate name for Satan, as had 'Belial' (1QS1.18,24; 2.5,19,etc.; cf. 2Cor6.15)."

So, I noted some similarities between Luke 11.15ff. and Acts 19.14-16 (and in light of 1Sam2):

1. Both are about casting out evil spirits.

2. Jesus says in Lk 11.19, "If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out?" Acts 19.14-16 speaks of sons of Sceva casting out evil spirits.

3. Jesus tells of the 'strong man', "When one stronger that he assails [another] and overcomes him...". Acts 19.16: "And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and mastered both of them, and overpowered them." (The Greek does not match between these two text on these terms. However, as I noted above, Belial in 1Sam2 is in the Heb, not LXX, which tells me Luke is remembering or is mindful of the subnarrative in Hebrew.)

4. The evil spirit of Jesus' story says, "I will return to the house from which I came" (Lk11.24). Acts 19.16: "...so that they fled that house...". (The Greek matches here, as it does with 1Sam2 LXX as well.)

5. The evil spirit of Jesus' story "brings seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there" (Lk11.26). Acts 19.14-16 speaks of seven sons of Sceva.

6. In Luke 11.15ff., the movement is from "spirits" (pl.) to "spirit" (sg., v24) back to "spirits" (pl., v26). In Acts 19.14-16, the movement is from "spirits" (pl., v13) to "spirit" (sg., v15). (This has otherwise been puzzling for commentators of Acts. See my previous post: http://ltdahn-theophilus.blogspot.com/2008/07/sceva-episode-parrt-1.html.)

7. In Luke 11, the movement is from one spirit to seven. In Acts 19, the movement is from seven sons to two ("both", amphoteron). Since there are so many similarities between these two Lucan passages and that of 1 Samuel 2, and considering the reference to "your sons" in Luke 11.19, it therefore is not so puzzling that Luke refers to two ("both") seemingly accidentally. He has the two corrupt sons of a high priest in mind, even though as a subnarrative and not overtly.

Back to 2 Samuel 2, Hophni and Phinehas were greedy (2.13-17,29). They desired the extra portions of the offerings. This is exactly what Jesus condemns in the parables of the unjust steward, the rich fool (who build up his barns, Lk12), the rich mand and Lazarus, etc.

ABD concludes: "Samuel emerges as the true priest of Israel." This is precisely what I have been arguing with reference to Luke's use of Samuel (http://ltdahn-theophilus.blogspot.com/2005/04/luke-jesus-and-samuel.html; http://ltdahn-theophilus.blogspot.com/2007/05/luke-240-52-jesus-child.html). Recall my assertion that in the story of the 12-yr-old Jesus, Luke is showing that Jesus is the "faithful priest" foretold of God in 1 Samuel 2.

Lastly, note the level of irony Luke is using in Acts 19. The sons of Sceva do not cast out the evil spirit, but the evil spirit cast out them! Note the text: "they fled out of that house naked and wounded." Recall Luke 11.24 the evil spirit says to himself, "I will return to my house from which I came." So there is another link between Luke 11 and Acts 19: irony. Luke is playing with his own previous work, recalling to Theophilus the story of Jesus' casting out demons. In this ironic way, Luke is able to rib Theophilus in a narrative in which Theophilus was completely absent. In other words, whereas in the earlier chapters of Acts (chs. 4-13+) Luke was able to show the corruption of the priesthood as it related to Theophilus directly (he may even have been one of the high priests mentioned or alluded to at various points in the earlier chapters!), in Acts 19 there is no such narrative link to Theophilus. So, creatively, Luke has come up with Sceva and his seven sons to conjur up once again the subnarrative of 1 Samuel 2 (the most popular of all corrupted priesthood accounts in Jewish history), just as he had before.

I believe, therefore, that Luke has been using 1 Samuel 2 as a subnarrative for great portions, if not all, of his story of Jesus and the Jesus movement.

The Sceva Episode (Part 1)

2008-07-17T05:49:00.000-07:00

Like so many others, I have been puzzled about the rhetoric of Acts 19.13-16, the story of the seven sons of Sceva casting out evil spirits. I believe that Luke may have 1 Samuel 2 inmind as a subnarrative for this story. (See also my posts: http://ltdahn-theophilus.blogspot.com/2005/04/luke-jesus-and-samuel.html; http://ltdahn-theophilus.blogspot.com/2007/05/luke-240-52-jesus-child.html).

Recall that in Acts 19, there are seven (hepta) sons, yet Luke says that the evil spirit takes down "both" (amphoteron). Here are some comments from Lucan scholars on the reconciling "seven" with "both":

Barrett (ICC, 911): 'amphoteron would normally mean both, which is inconsistent with hepta in v. 14. ...There are a few somewhat later papyrus examples of the use of amphoteroi in the sense of all and it is probably best to suppose that Luke here gives us the earliest known occurrence.'

Fitzmyer (AB, 650): '[Of v. 16] overpowerd them all. Lit., "overpowering both of them." The pron. amphoteron, "both of them", is strange, implying that the sons were two. This reading of the Alexandrian text is in conflict with hepta, "seven (sons)" of c. 14. Some MSS read simply auton, "them", thus eliminating the problem. For a farfetched attempt to explain amphoteron as referring to the two names just mentioned, Jesus and Paul, see Lattey..." Regarding v. 14, "seven", Fitzmyer says, 'For a farfetched suggestion that the text read 'two sons', thus making the word amphoteron in v. 16 unintelligiable, instead of "seven sons", see Torrey.... Torrey maintains that the cipher for 2 was confused with one for 7.'

L. T. Johnson (SP, 340, 341): 'The Western Text tries to correct the apparent disconnectedness of this verse: "amond them also were the [seven] sons...". The textual evidence for "seven" is uncertain, possibly because of the inconsistency that Luke introduces with the use of amphoteros ("both") in v. 16. ...There is an obvious tension between the "seven sons" in v. 14 and the "both" who are overwhelmed here, unless we take amphoteroi in the broad Hellenistic sense of "all".'

Conzelmann (Herm, 164): 'either [Luke's] source spoke of two exorcists, in which case amphoteron has the sense of "both", or Luke uses the word with its loose Hellenistic sense, "all" (RSV).'

Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: 'Some have felt a difficulty that hepta in ver. 14 changes ver. 16 to "two" (amphoteroi, though occasionally in substandard Greek amphoteroi has the meaning of "all"). [Metzger then mentions several different suggestions from the likes of Moulton, Clark, Torrey, Overbeck, and Naber.] ...The difficulty of reconciling hepta with amphoteroi, however, is not so great as to render the text that includes both an impossible text. On the other hand, however, the difficulty is so troublesome that it is hard to explain how hepta came into the text, and was perpetuated, if it were not original, whereas, in view of amphoteroi, it is easy to see how it might have been omitted.'

Also, there is that funny reference to "that house" (oikou ekeinou) at the close of the story. Here are some commentators on "that house":

Barrett (ICC, 911): 'This [oikou ekeinou] should refer back to a previously mentioned house; there is none. ...Rooff concludes from the unexplained reference to a house that Luke is abbreviating tradition. But the whole of vv. 14-16 creates a somewhat unsatisfactory impression, which probably accounts for the rewriting in D. One is inclined to suppose that a fragmentary and unsatisfactory tradition narrative has been incorporated here; its unsatisfactory state might be held to speak well for Luke's faithfulness to tradition. But he could have tidied it up without unfaithfulness, and it is hard to know why he did not' [italics mine].

L. T. Johnson (SP, 341): 'There is also the unexpected appearance of "that house" which had not previously been mentioned. In general, this is not the most carefully crafted of Luke's vignettes.'

I also noted before that Luke moves from "spirits" (pl.) to "spirit" (sg.) seemingly arbitrarily. Conzelmann on this (Herm., 163): 'humas, "you," is plural in agreement with the plural pneumata, "spirits"; this is redactional - the original version knew only of one demon.'

On the overall awkwardness of the passage, Conzelmann (164): 'The incorporation of the individual story into the context has resulted in some confusion. At this point more descriptive material should have been given (and originally was included) in which the encounter with the demon and the speaking of the formula of exorcism were described. But Luke has already anticipated that and immediately moves beyond it; he goes abruptly into the midst of the action. No setting is introduced until vs 16. The demon is not driven out, but begins to debate; with that it has already won the contest.'

I agree with Conzelmann on one thig: 'The high priest Sceva is a purely legendary figure' (164). I believe Luke is mocking Theophilus and his family, thus not meaning to refer to any historical figure named "Sceva".

My Conclusion

My suggestion that Luke has written this portion sloppily because he has an undernarrative in mind makes good sense of the data, and of the many questions involving the text, as demonstrated by first-rate scholars above. Luke has used the subnarrative of 1 Samuel 2 before in implicating the priesthood (cf. http://ltdahn-theophilus.blogspot.com/2007/05/luke-240-52-jesus-child.html). In Acts, he has unusually harkened back to Samuel's testimony to Jesus and the new age (Ac3.24; cf. 13.20). (Samuel is only mentioned elsewhere in the NT at Heb11.32). In 1 Samuel 2, we read of the corruption and fate of Eli's two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, and how their house will be desolate, in the wake of a new house built by the faithful priest promised of God. Luke has this story, the epitome of examples regarding the corruption of the priesthood, in mind while writing Luke-Acts. By the time he comes to the later chapters in Acts, when Theophilus and his family had no longer run the Temple or been involved in the events Luke describes, and Luke did not have grounds for criticizing him any longer, Luke employed this Sceva character, who supposedly had seven sons (Theophilus, his father Annas, his four brothers, and his brother-in-law Caiaphas) who could not do what Paul & co. were able to do in Jesus' name and for God's kingdom. Therefore, Luke can slip in a comment of "both of them", referring to the sons of Sceva, though he had previously mentioned "seven" sons. He has Hophni and Phinehas in mind. This is further confirmed by the puzzling reference to "that house" at the close of the pericope where there is no antecedent "house" present.

There is also the possibility of writer fatigue in Luke's mind and hand. He has Hophni and Phinehas in mind, but in his fatigue allows them to get into his fingers as he writes, so as to be "confusing", according to scholars.

This suggestion is consistent with Luke's use of 1 Samuel 2 in GLuke to show that Jesus is the faithful priest foretold by God to Eli. Thus, Luke is using the story to criticize the priesthood of his day, of which Theophilus and his family were members.

Eleazar ben Annas = Alexander of Acts 4.6?

2008-07-13T17:51:00.000-07:00

I recently read that Alexander is the Graecized form of the Hebrew name Eleazar. We know that Annas the high priest of 6-15AD had five sons who served as high priest, one of whom was named Eleazar. Since we have no record of a high priest bearing the name Alexander in Josephus, et al., and since we are told that one Alexander was of "the high priestly family" in Acts 4.6, might that Alexander mean to be a reference to Eleazar ben Annas, who served as high priest from 16-17AD?

Additionally, the John of Acts 4.6 might very well be Jonathan ben Annas, who served as high priest twice. This would explain further why Luke can call this group members of "the high priestly family". If Luke's recipient Theophilus is the son of Annas (as is posited here on this blog) who served as high priest from 37-41AD, he would have easily recognized his brothers' names, even if shortened or Graecized. Perhaps there is an intention on Luke's part to publicly obscure, yet reveal to Theophlius, the identities of these "high priests". I cannot find any reason for the phenomenon known as "protective anonimity" in this case. However, the irony is far more than coincidence.

Also, note that Luke does not say that these men are of "priestly descent". He says they are of the "HIGH priestly family". This is a much more specific reference. For there is no basis of descent which entitles one to the high priesthood.

Felix, Jonathan and Theophilus

2008-07-10T19:36:00.000-07:00

Dan Barag and David Flusser, in their article concerning an ossuary bearing the names "Yehohanah" and "Theophilus", write, "After playing an important role in public life during the time of Cumanus (50-52 C.E.), he [Jonathan, Theophilus' brother] was murdered at the instigation of the prefect Felix” (D. Barag and D. Flusser, "The Ossuary of Yehohanah Granddaughter of the High Priest Theophilus", Israel Exploration Journal, 36 [1986], 43n.19; they reference Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. ed. [Vermes and Millar], 230).

Is this perhaps why Luke casts Felix in such a wicked light in Acts? Felix is said to have expected a bribe from Paul (Ac24.26). If indeed Felix was responsible for the murder of Theophilus' brother Jonathan, then his holding of Paul (cf. Ac24.27) might very well be (spiteful?) motivation for Theophilus to intervene on Paul's behalf. Perhaps Luke, knowing of Felix responsibility in Jonathan's death, hoped to instigate intervention on the part of Theophilus.

(I have read that Jonathan was actually killed by the Sicarii, though the event was instigated by Felix. The citation eludes me at present.)

A Brief Analysis of Luke 13-22

2008-07-08T09:07:00.000-07:00

Analysis of Luke 13-22 (the bold and italicized portions showing continuity of argument throughout the text), with a conclusion following:

Luke 13.22-30: “You will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ But [the householder] will say, ‘I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, you workers of iniquity.’ There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out. And men will come from the east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God. And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.”

[Luke 13.31-35: Jesus’ denouncement of Jerusalem as a response to the Pharisees who apparently seek to save his life from Herod.]

Luke 14.7-11: Jesus told a parable: “When you are invited by anyone to a marriage feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest a more eminent man than you be invited by him; and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give place to this man,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, go up higher’; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you. For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Luke 14.12-14: He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your kinsmen or your neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”

Luke 14.15-24: When one of those who sat at table with him heard this, he said to him, “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!” But he said to him, “A man once gave a great banquet, and invited many; and at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come; for all is now ready.’ But they all alike began to make excuses…. So the servant came a reported this to his master. Then the householder in anger said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame.’ And the servant said, ‘Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’ And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.’”

[Luke 14.25-35: Jesus’ teachings on denying one’s self, taking up cross; and a saying on salt.]

Luke 15.1-2: Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

[Luke 15.3-20.44: Various sayings and pericopes denouncing the Pharisees, scribes, chief priests, and Sadducees.]

Luke 20.45-47: And in the hearing all of the people he said to his disciples, “Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and love salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.” (Cf. especially 11.42-44!)

[Luke 21.1-38: Olivet Discourse.]

Luke 22.14-30: Various indicators that Jesus’ disciples accomplish what the Pharisees, et al, had been denounced for:

[Jesus] sat at table, and his apostles with him (22.14).

“I have earnestly desired [all this time] to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (22.15-16).

“I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (22.18).

A dispute arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, “...[L]et the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For which is greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves. You are those who have continued with me in my trials; and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (22.24-30).

Conclusion:

Jesus repeatedly denounces the Pharisees, scribes, chief priests, and Sadducees as regards 1) presumed placement at table fellowship during meals and banquets [first/last; greatest/least], 2) the expectation of those who are truly invited to sit at table [Pharisees, et al, who are physically present and rest on that (cf. 13.22ff.), OR the poor, maimed, blind, lame from the east, west, north, south], 3) the coming of the kingdom of God in unique and unexpected fashion. The disciples sit in direct and obvious contrast to the Pharisees, et al. They physically sit at table with Jesus as Jesus FINALLY gets to enjoy table fellowship with them alone (cf. 22.15). Jesus shows them that placement at the table truly doesn’t matter, but service of one another matters. And Jesus promises to them, as opposed to the Pharisees, et al, that they will indeed eat and drink at Jesus’ table in the kingdom of God.

Synagogues in Jerusalem

2008-06-24T06:41:00.000-07:00

It is hotly debated whether or not there were any synaoguges in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period. However, both the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud give a different impression:

"There were four hundred and eighty synagogues in Jerusalem, each of which had a bet sefer and a bet talmud. The bet sefer was for [the study of] the Bible, and the bet talmud for [the study of] the Mishnah, and Vespasian destroyed them all" (y. Megillah 3.1.73a).

A similar claim is made in b. Kethuboth 105a, claiming the number of synagogues in Jerusalem was 394.

Do these late texts give sufficient evidence that there were synagogues in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period, before 70AD? I seem to recall that in the Essene sector of Jerusalem, there is archaeological evidence for mikvehs, which may suggest the existence of a synagogue there. I will research this further.

Priests and Synagogues

2008-06-23T19:55:00.000-07:00

In the Second Temple period, who ruled the synagogues? It seems the general scholarly consensus is that synagogues, especially those of the Diaspora, belonged to the lay people. Two scholars offer a different picture.

1. Donald Binder, in his book Into the Temple Courts, suggests the priests and Levites controlled some (many?) of the synagogues. The Greek terms usually used to denote synagogue leaders in literary and epigraphic evidences include archon (18 times: 2 in Jos.; 16 in epigraphs) and archisynagogos (16 times: 10 in NT; 6 in epigraphs), among several others (which occur between 1 and 4 times). Archon ("prince" or "ruler") appears in the form of archontes in the LXX in Ex16.22; 34.31; Num1.16; 31.13,26; 32.2; Josh9.15,16; 22.30. "During the Second Temple period, these archontes, along with a somewhat exclusive group known as 'elders' (presbyteroi), served as subsidiary rulers under the High Priest, forming a ...synedrion" (Temple Courts, 345). Binder then goes on to show that these archontes also run the synagogues of both Judea and the Diaspora. Entry into the synedrion "was probably by the appointment of the High Priest, though the lineage and popularity among the masses were undoubtedly factors as well" (345). Binder also notes that "terms appear to have been for life, though changes in political regimes could result in the loss of one's position" (345). Further, Binder demonstrates that doorkeepers, those conveying scriptures to and from readers, and general overseers of synagogues (at least in Egypt and Palestine) were often Levites.

After his examination of all the data, Binder concludes, "Our survey has highlighted the role of priests and Levites within synagogues. Here, sources indicate that priests served as archisynagogoi and archontes, and suggested that they frequently served as scribes. Similarly, the Levites functioned as scribes as also appear to have filled the role of synagogue attendant... The evidence points to the conclusion that the Temple and the synagogue both belonged to the priests, Levites and people, with all three groups having a measure of leadership and participation within each institution" (371).

2. E. P. Sanders, in his book Judaism: Practice and Belief (63BCE-66CE), makes the same claim, though on different grounds:

"Philo indicates that priests retained their status as leaders in the Diaspora (Hypothetica 7.12f.), and archeology confirms that in at least some places outside of Palestine priests were specifically designated as such [footnoting an inscription found at a synagogue at Sardis, dating from the 4th century CE, reading "priest and teacher of wisdom"]" (pp. 52-3).

"[Upon assessing the well-known Theodotus inscription] What is clear here is that the rulers of the synagogue were priests, three generations of them, and very prosperous priests at that. If we must assign them to a party, the Sadducean would be the most likely guess [contra Hengel, who believes Theodotus was a Pharisee], but there is no reason to think that they represent a party. What we learn from the inscription is that a family of wealthy priests who could speak Greek built and maintained a synagogue for Greek-speaking pilgrims, and that the synagogue had a dual purpose of serving as a guest house and a place of instruction. The inscription supports the evidence of the literature: it was the priests who taught the law" (pp.176-7).

"The Theodotus inscription is graphic evidence of the role of priests in synagogues, a role that some retained in the Diaspora. We recall that according to Philo a priest or elder was responsible for sabbath instruction (Hypothetica 7.13). At the synagogue in Sardis an inscription was found that refers to a man who was a 'priest and teacher of widsom'. This is from the fourth century. Its relevance is that it shows continuity with the passage of Philo and the Theopdotus inscription. In neither Palestine nor the Diaspora did priests withdraw from public life and community study and worship. By our period, prayer and reading of the Bible had already been incorporated in the temple service. It was a natural development for priests to perform both functions in synagogues as well.... The priest or elder read and interpreted the Bible, and other for the most part remained silent (Philo, Hypothetica, 7.13)" (pp.201-2).

"...Josephus presupposes that the priests were the official teachers of the nation, though he also depicts lay Pharisees and Essenes as public teachers. I think that we cannot safely generalize about who dominated how many sunagogues, but we must doubt that the Pharisees ran all of them" (p.398).

On page 398, Sanders sufficiently shows that there were three times more Levites and priests than Pharisees, based on Josephus' ficgures. And that the number of Pharisees made it impossible for them to be in charge of all of the synagogues in the Diaspora. Thus, he concludes, the priests and Levites were in charge of some of the synagogues.

Johanna and Spirit-infirmities

2008-06-15T23:20:00.000-07:00

In Lk8.1-3, we are told that Johanna was one of the women supporting Jesus' ministry who had been healed of "evil spirits and infirmities", pneumaton poneron kai astheneion. It has been posited on this blog that Luke's recipient is Theophilus the high priest of 37-41CE, that his granddaughter Johanna is the same as mentioned by Luke (Lk8.3; 24.10). I wonder if in Luke's story he included the episode in which Johanna was healed, though not naming her. Two episodes strike me as possibilities:

1) The story of Jairus' daughter, a twelve-year-old dying girl (Lk8.40-42, 49ff.). This story comes in close proximity to the first mention of Johanna. I realize the biggest problem with this assertion is that the evidence linking Theophilus with Johanna (an ossuary) mentions Johanna's father, John/Johnathan (Yehohanan). But Luke might perhaps be using a different name, Jairus, for Johanna's protection (a common enough practice in this period, as can be demonstrated elsewhere in the NT), which would also account for Luke's keeping this daughter anonymous. (Protective anonymity in such an instance would have been necessary, given that "Jairus" was a ruler of the synagogue, archon tes synagoges; 8.41.) Further, as best as I can tell, Luke's Johanna, if she were the granddaughter of Theophilus the high priest of 37-41CE, could not have been much older that 12 or 15 or 18, which brings up the second possibility:

2) The woman with a crippling spirit of 18 years (Lk13.1ff.). Again we find Jesus in and around a synagogue healing an infirmity. And again we find a ruler of the synagogue present, though this time indignant that Jesus is healing on the Sabbath (13.14). This episode is interesting because the woman's affliction is said to be "a spirit of infirmity", pneuma astheneias (13.11) - the very same description as that of the women of 8.1-3: pneumaton poneron kai astheneion, "evil spirits and infirmities".

These episodes are striking to me because Luke has given them a kind of place of prominence, with rich details (even names, or pseudonymns, and ages of individuals) absent in other similar healing pericopes. They are high-profile episodes in Luke's story. These episodes are significant in some way for Luke's account for Theophilus, as though they mean to be more than mere proofs that Jesus was legitimate.

I also wonder if perhaps the woman with an issue of blood (Lk8.43ff.) represents Suzanna, another woman said to be healed among Jesus' supporters (8.3). She must have been much older, having been afflicted with the issue of blood for 12 years. But, of course, given the data, this is impossible to demonstrate. I only thought it worth mentioning because this episode is likewise in close proximity to the intitial mention of these women.

I intend to look further into this "Jairus", as to whether or not his name is significant for Luke's story (meaning "God will enlighten/arouse"), or whether or not Luke is pointing to an individual possibly known to Theophilus. Because Luke rarely names individual players in his various episodes (e.g., Cleopas as the only named one of the two on the road to Emmaus), it is most probably significant (to Theophilus) when he does name someone.

copyrighted 2008

Zacchaeus, "a Son of Abraham"

2008-06-15T22:56:00.000-07:00

A few notes about Zacchaeus from Lk19.1ff.:

1. He is said to be an architelones, "a chief tax collector". This is a hapax, showing up in Lk19.2 only among all early Christian literature (so, BAGD). Does this office resemble that of Chuza, an epitropos, "steward" (which is also rarely found in early Christian literature)?

2. He is called huios Abraam, "a son of Abraham" (Lk19.9). The only other individual given such a title is the twelve-year-old daughter of Jairus healed by Jesus, called thuatera Abraam, "a daughter of Abraham" (13.16). What I find interesting is the entire clause: kathoti kai autos huios Abraam, "because he also is a son of Abraham". Marshall (Luke, NIGTC) suggests the reading, 'even this tax collector', concluding, "The saying probably means 'salvation must be extended to this man because even a tax collector is a Jew'" (citing O. Michel and Schweizer, TDNT). I am wondering if perhaps the kai ought to be understood as "also", thus harkening back to the daughter of Jarius as the initial child of Abraham. I realize the distance between the two pericopes probably makes my query unlikely. But, if the two individuals were known by Theophilus, perhaps Luke intended to arouse Theophilus' memory of the first (13.16) by the inclusion of the kai in the second (19.9), showing that they are two significant players in Luke's story who are embraced by God's Messiah.

copyrighted 2008

Emmaus?

2007-06-11T18:39:00.000-07:00

I recently read Jenny Read-Heimerdinger's "Where is Emmaus? Clues in the Text of Luke 24 in Codex Bazae" (Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, ed. D. G. K. Taylor. Atlanta: SBL, 1999, pp. 229-244). Basically, Read-Heimerdinger suggests that in Luke 24.13, Bazae's reading of Oulammaous is to be preferred over Vaticanus' Emmaous. Oulammaous was the former name of Bethel (Gen28.19). Jacob was responsible for the name change. Genesis 28.10-20 tells of Jacob's marking of the spot where God dwelt on earth (thus the change to "Bethel"). Jacob dreams of a ladder, conneting heaven and earth, upon which angels descend and ascend.

I agree with Read-Heimerdinger's assessment. But I'd like to add something to her notion. I have suggested before that Luke is perhaps rewriting John's history in symbolic or parabolic form (cf. my post on the rich man and Lazarus). (I am also working on the possibility of Luke's "Cleopas" [Lk24.18] being John's "Clopas" [Jn9.25]). If the preferred reading of Luke 24.13 is Bazae's Oulammaous in place of Vaticanus' Emmaous, and if Luke is perhaps rewriting John's history, I am compelled to believe that John 1.45-51 is rewritten in Luke 24. John 1.45-51 reads:

45: Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
46: Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."
47: Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!"
48: Nathanael said to him, "How do you know me?" Jesus answered him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."
49: Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!"
50: Jesus answered him, "Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these."
51: And he said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man."

Notice a two important parallels between John's text and Luke 24.13-35:

1. Both speak of Jesus' fulfillment of the "Moses and the prophets" (Jn1.45 // Lk24.27).

2. Both speak of visions of the angels (Jn1.51 // Lk24.23). Moreover, Luke's mention of Oulammaous (24.13) directly links his story to Jacob's dream (Gen28), in which angels were descending and ascending, representing God's provision for mediation between heaven and earth (cf. Jn1.51).

Copyright 2007

Sceva: Initial Thoughts

2007-06-06T18:03:00.000-07:00

I am working on the pericope in Acts 19 about the seven sons of the "Jewish high priest" (RSV) Sceva. The name "Sceva" is nowhere attested of any Jewish priestly figure, which has caused many commentators to suggest that he is a Jew who became a "chief priest" in an Imperial pagan cult. Others make much of the variant reading involving arxierewn ("high priest", RSV), suggesting the more general "chief priest" is to be preferred.

Perhaps a more interesting suggestion is offered by Luke Timothy Johnson (Luke, Sacra Pagina Commentary), that the latin equivalent of the greek Skeua is in view. In Latin it means "untrustworthy". Perhaps Luke is meaning to indicate that the priesthood known first-hand to Theophilusis from "untrustworthy" stock. The "seven sons" would then represent Theophilus' and his four brothers, Annas his father, and Caiaphas his brother-in-law - all of whom have been implicated, either specifically or generally, in Luke's previous volume (for example, see here, and here).

I understand that The Anchor Bible Dictionary (5:1004) claims that "Sceva" may mean "left-handed". I'm not yet sure if there's something to this. I will be checking this next trip to the library.

Copyright 2007

Luke 3.30 and Mark 6.3 (Matthew 13.55)?

2007-05-27T13:34:00.000-07:00

Again, with the genealogy...

During this morning's service, my attention was drawn to the brothers of Jesus. We read Mark 6.3: "Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" I recalled that Luke does not mention this list. Matthew does, though swapping the order of the last two names (13.55). But I did note that in Luke's genealogy, four names very similar to these show up in the same sequence as Mark's (though descending in chronology). Luke 3.30: "...the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam...". The Greek names:

Mark.................Luke

Iakwbou.............Iwnam
Iwsetos..............Iwseph
Iouda.................Iouda
Simwnos.............Sumewn

I have asserted elsewhere (here and here) that Luke's genealogy is deliberately arranged. I have not yet come to any conclusion as to why. I affirm Lukan priority. Because it is quite apparent to any caferful reader of Luke's genealogy that he arranged his list, and because Luke's list doesn't jive with Matthew's (which is most probably artificial as well, given his arrangement), I wonder if perhaps there is an indication somewhere which reveals the reason for it, or the significances of his names. I wonder if perhaps Mark realized the significance of at least this portion of Luke's list, and inserted that significance here in Mark 6.3. Notice that Luke only names males and Mark doesn't list a single sister's name, only vaguely referring to them. Perhaps he realized the significance of this portion of Luke's list and realized that there were no female names and inserted what he could based on what he knew. This is pure conjecture, I realize. And I will keep it under that status, pending evidence forwarding the argument. I just thought it worth mentioning.

[I have thought that Matthew preceded Mark as well. But, if it be possible that an inkling of what I've said can be true, and if Mark did take from Luke, and given Matthew's skewing of the order here and Mark's harmony with Luke's list, it seems more likely that Matthew followed Mark. So, regarding this instance, and assuming Lukan priority, the order seems Luke-Mark-Matthew.]

Copyright 2007

Priests and Tax Collectors

2007-05-25T13:14:00.000-07:00

I recently read in Richard D. Nelson's Raising Up a Faithful Priest an interesting comment: "Priests served as tax collectors and assessors, determining the monetary worth of vowed animals and real estate (Lev27.12, 18) and the ability of individuals to pay the required amounts (v. 8)" (p. 47). While I realize it's probably not what Luke (or any other Gospel writer) referred to by the title "tax collector", I am reminded that Matthew was a tax collector and formerly named "Levi". Any significance?

One the other hand, the biggest problem with equating the tax collectors in GLuke with the temple establishment is that Pharisees rebuke Jesus for associating with them. Luke 5.27ff. tells of Levi the tax collector's call to follow Jesus. Subsequently, Jesus eats with the tax collectors and the Pharisees are upset. If these tax collectors are temple people, then the Pharisees would hardly be upset.

Copyright 2007

Age of Annas?

2007-05-25T13:06:00.000-07:00

I have been trying to find any indication of the ages of the first century high priests. Some suggest Annas was 37 when he took office in 6CE:

http://gospeldoctrine.com/NewTestament/Acts4.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl313.htm (see under "Facts")
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1554&letter=A&search=Annas

Is this claim substantiable?

This website suggests that Annas was alive until the revolt of 66 CE: http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/annas.htm. Is that possible/probable?

Copyright 2007

Luke's Jesus and Isaiah 52

2007-05-25T07:50:00.000-07:00

Luke 7.36-50 tells of the anointing of Jesus' feet. Luke 8.1ff. describes Jesus' "preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God". Perhaps there is something lurking behind Luke's narrative.

Recall Isaiah 52.7: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news , who publishes peace, who brings good news of good, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, 'Your God reigns' " (emphasis added).

Is Luke therefore suggesting here that Jesus, whose feet were anointed, is then the "lovely one" who preaches the "good news" as spoken of by Isaiah?

I also find it interesting that the latter half of Isaiah 52 speaks of ritual purity, culminating into the refrain:

"Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. As many were astonished at him -- his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men -- so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand." (52.13-15).

Copyright 2007

Hypocrisy in Luke 12 and 2 Maccabees 6

2007-05-23T14:49:00.000-07:00

Richard once asked me, regarding hypocrites and hypocrisy as they relate to Luke 12:

"In 2nd Macc, the Jewish people are ordered to eat meat that has been sacrificed to the idols and Eleazar is offered 'kosher' meat to eat to make it appear he is in compliance with the order of the king but he refuses saying it would be hypocrisy to do so (and misleading) to the Jewish people. In his refusal, he becomes a Jewish martyr. Is Jesus [in Luke 12] in saying, 'beware of the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy' somehow alluding to Eleazar and contrasting the behavior and conduct of the Pharisees with Eleazar?"

Richard was considering Jesus' admonition as an allusion to the sory of Eleazar as told in 2 Maccabees 6. I responded:

1. Hypocrisy in Luke 12.1ff. is defined as saying something in secret or hiding something (12.1-3; the hidden thing will be revealed); not confessing before men (12.8ff.). This is essentially the same phenomenon expected from Eleazar [the refusal of which led to his martyrdom].

2. More importantly, there is a deeper parallel involving the two texts:

In Luke 12.4ff., [we find the] admonition to not fear (me phobethete; cf. 12.7) those who can kill the body (soma); "fear (phobethete) him who can destroy body (soma) in hell".

2Macc6.30: Eleazar suffers in his body (soma); Eleazar says, "I will suffer these things because I fear (phobov) him [the Almighty]; 2Macc6.26 = Eleazar says, "Whether I live or die, I shall not not escape the hands of hte Almighty".

=====

I have not studied this line further since these remarks. Perhaps time will permit it soon. In the meantime, if you find this line of inquiry interesting or have something to contribute here, please leave a note. I'm interested in others' thoughts.

Copyright 2007

Jesus on Divorce (and Sadducees?)

2007-05-23T14:29:00.000-07:00

Richard and I have been considering the possibility that Luke's Jesus may be employing the narrative of Ezra 7-10 as a background for his parable of the dishonest steward and subsequent teachings in Luke 16.1-18. Two things interigued me at the time of initial study which I have yet to follow up on. Here are my initial comments and queries:

1) There are two major passages in Luke dealing with marriage and divorce. The first is the seemingly random saying of 16.18. In Ezra's day, the Levites (plus a few others) were guilty of intermarriage, for which Ezra commanded a mass divorce. So, the Levites violated the Law (Deut7.1-7), thus requiring a purging via divorce. What if, in Jesus' day, the Pharisees, et al, were not guilty of intermarriage, but deemed themselves worthy of divorce (cf. Deut24.1-4), perhaps even in en masse, which would therefore provoke Luke's Jesus to employ Ezra's story as an under-narrative? Can this case be made? If so, notice the smoothe(r) reading through 16.14-18 (paraphrased below):

"You Pharisees seek men's approval, and forget about God's. What men seek is abominable! The Law was preached until John. Since John, the kingdom has come and people are pressing into it. But, do not think that this nullifies the Law. For, not one dot will pass away from the Law - which, by the way, prohibits divorcing you wives in the manners in which you have been dealing in it. You are not guilty of intermarriage [as in Ezra's day], but simply of divorce by preference. You all are adulterers!"

The second passage in Luke dealing with divorce and marriage is that of 20.27ff., where the Sadducees bring up the ridiculous scenario of a husband and his 6 brothers, all who die in succession, marrying in succession the wife of the first. This wife has no child from any of the brothers. The question posed to Jesus is, "Whose wife will she be?" In Deuteronomy 25.5-10 (a passage immediately following the previously mentioned Deut. text dealing with divorce), we find Moses concerned about the purity of the people, about husbands not desiring to procreate and keep their line going. That husband was to be publicly shamed. The Sadducees of Jesus' day ultimately are posing a question of purity - else why mention that she was unable to have any children? This means that she and the brothers were shamed, in a sense, for not procreating and extending their line. Can this interpretation be sustained?

2) In rereading Luke 20.27-40, I am reminded of the story of the rich man and Lazarus (16.19-31). Recall my interpretation, that the three elements which Sadducees find objectionable (resurrection, angels, and spirits) are present there. The same is true of 20.27-40. Their question involves marriage status in the resurrection. In Jesus' answer, we find a kind of proof that the resurrection is real, based on an implication in Moses (20.37-38). We also find a seemingly unnecessary reference to angels (20.36). Why does Jesus include it here? And the whole scenario presupposes an afterlife existence, implying spiritual existence. I am beginning to believe that, like Caiaphas, Theophilus was a Sadducee. And Luke, in Jesus' teachings, is trying to break that philosophy down. These details are not necessary for Jesus' answer to be satisfactory. In fact, upon rereading of the Sadducess' scenario, I am compelled to think that the initial concern from them (purity of the race, as described in Deut25.5-10) has been demoted, so to speak, by Luke's Jesus so that he can introduce rebuttals to the Sadducean philosophy. Why else would these details emerge?

Copyright 2007

Jesus and Ritual Cleansing

2007-05-23T14:04:00.000-07:00

When Jesus declares one's sins to be forgiven (implying that atonement has been made), why is there no mention of the requirement of sacrifice? Why does no one ask about it? Those forgiven instantly assume that Jesus' authority matches, or perhaps replaces, that of the temple's.

Paula Fredriksen has suggested that Jesus may have undergone ritual cleansing after having contacted ritually impure people (such as lepers). (I apologize. I will have to find the citation for this.) Her point is that Jesus was a faithful Jew, and we have no data suggesting that he didn't undergo such purification. So, I suppose a case might be made that those whom Jesus forgave took it upon themselves to make atonement at the temple, to confirm what Jesus had said. Or, Jesus may have asked them to present themselves at the temple, though it not be recorded, unless one interprets Jesus' admonition to present themselves to the priests as a submission to ritual cleansing via the temple.

I wonder if perhaps a certain case might be made regarding the question of sacrifice and forgiveness from Jesus. Crispin Fletcher-Louis has argued that Jesus understood himself to be the echatological high priest, as described in Daniel 7, and that he presented himself in those terms. If correct, then it might very well be that his followers understood him in that way as well, and word may have gotten around of his teachings and claims. If so, then those whom he healed would have understood that they did not need to make an atoning sacrifice at the temple. Daniel 7 makes no mention of sacrifice (apart from the allusion to incense). Therefore, those healed by Jesus, the son of man, can conceive of forgiveness apart from atoning sacrifice.

Crispin does not make this point, unfortunately. I hope to explore it further.

Copyright 2007

Luke 12.42-48 and Joseph?

2007-05-22T17:59:00.000-07:00

Honestly, I'm not so sure that there is anything to this. But, I thought it worth mentioning.

Two posts ago, I wrote: "5. In 12.42, Luke uses the terms 'measures of grain' (sitometrion) where Matthew [...] says 'food' (trophe). I wonder if these measures of grain are temple-oriented. I wonder if the 'grain' of 12.42 corresponds to the 'grain' stored up by the rich fool in 12.18. In both cases, the servants/fool disregard the coming sudden judgment/return in favor of fattening themselves (and, in the case of the servants, beating the other servants)."

Perhaps Jesus' parable in Luke 12.42-48 leans on the narrative of Genesis 45-47, involving Joseph and his brothers.

1. Jesus' stewards were responsible for providing food for the master's therapeias ("household") while the master was away. Genesis 45 tells of Joseph's reconciliation with his brothers. Upon learning of the arrival of Joseph's brothers, Pharaoh and his therapeia were pleased to take care of them during the famine (Gen45.16-20).

2. Jesus' stewards were responsible for distributing sitometrion ("measures of grain/food") to his master's household. In Genesis 47.12, we find Joseph esitometrei ("providing food") for his father, his brothers, and all of his father's household, under Pharaoh's provision (again, Genesis 45.16-20). (See A. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 158). [I am yet unable to account for Luke's employment of therapeias while in Genesis 47, regarding Joseph's father's household, we find oikw, and in Genesis 45, regarding Pharaoh's household, we find therapeia.]

Again, I am not sure if there anything significant here. I am inclined to believe that this may be, at very least, an example of what I have termed unintentional cognitive association. I am learning, however, that if such a phenomenon exists, it is virtually impossible to demonstrate. On the other hand, suggestion may work where demonstration doesn't, though the force of suggestion be inferior.

Copyright 2007

Luke and Pilate

2007-05-21T20:39:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking about Pilate's slaughtering of Galileans, as told in Luke 13.1ff. I believe that this incident is the issue over which Pilate and Herod became bitter enemies (Lk23.12). Upon hearing that Jesus was Galilean, Pilate sent Jesus to Herod (who was in Jerusalem; Lk23.6ff). Herod was overjoyed at this, and Pilate and Herod then became friends (Lk23.12).

I find it extremely interesting that since Pilate had such a terrible reputation (cf. Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 38.302), he was courteous enough to allow Jesus to be given over to Herod. Where did this courtesy come from? Was he in that much fear of the Jews over the decisions regarding Jesus? I doubt it. I believe that he was trying to make good with Herod, after having enraged him for slaughtering Herod's people.

Richard reminded me of Matthew's testimony, that Pilate's wife advised him to leave Jesus alone on account of her dream (27.17-19). But this detail is lacking in Luke's story. And because Luke tells so clearly of the schism between Herod and Pilate, and of the incident of Luke 13.1ff., and of their reconciliation, I am compelled to believe that Luke has another explanation in mind: namely, that Pilate was trying to make good with Herod after having slaughtered some of Herod's people. Else, why include the story of 13.1ff. at all, while balancing the animosity and subsequent reconciliation between Pilate and Herod? The pericope of 13.1ff. has more to do with the political landscape leading up to Jesus' arrest and death than with that single otherwise randomly-placed, cryptic incident. And the fact that the people were merely informing Jesus of the incident shows that Luke was more interested in including the pericope than in having Jesus comment on it, as does Jesus' response.

So, if this be correct, what possible indicators in Luke's text might there be?

Perhaps the nobleman of Luke 19.12 is Pilate. He was known to be a violent man (Jos. Ant. 18.3.2[60-62]; 18.4.1-2[87-89]; Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 38.302), and thus was feared and dreaded by his constituents (cf. Luke 19.14, 21). In Jesus' parable of the wicked servant in Luke 19.12ff., the nobleman slays his enemies, "those who did not want me to be king over them". The nobleman commands his subjects to "kill [my enemies] before me". In Josephus (Ant. 18.3.2[60-62]), many Jews ("ten thousands") rose up against Pilate, in revolt, because he used the "sacred money" to "bring a current of water to Jerusalem". Pilate had soldiers armed with daggers surround the Jewish rebels. When the Jews would not go away at his bidding, he signaled the soldiers, and they slew the Jewish rebels (though Pilate did not mean for such a severe attack to take place). The soldiers slaughtered both the guilty and innocent. As a result, a "great number of them were slain...and thus an end was put to this sedition." In essense, these Jewish rebels were slain "before Pilate", just as those in Jesus' parable were slain "before [the nobleman]".

Whiston, in footnote, suggests that these Jews "may very well be those very Galilean Jews, 'whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices' (Luke 13.1-2)" (fn 553). Recall that Pilate queried as to whether or not Jesus was Galiliean (Luke 23.6-7). As a proof that the episode above corresponds to Luke 13.1, Whiston cites Noldius (de Herod. No. 249): "The cause of the enmity between Herod and Pilate seems to have been this, that Pilate had intermingled with the tetrarch's jurisdiction, and had slain some of his Galilean subjects [cf. Luke 13.1]; and, as he was willing to correct that error, he sent Christ to Herod this time" (Whiston, fn 553). So, apparently, Herod and Pilate were at odds with one another, but had made amends when Pilate sent Jesus to Herod (Luke 23.12 [cf. vv.6-7]).

(I have written about the possible significance of Pilate's misuse of the sacred money here.)

Copyright 2007

Luke 12.35-48: Details

2007-05-20T23:56:00.000-07:00

Upon rereading Luke 12.35-48, I noticed some new details which seem to bear more significance than I previously realized. I once asserted that Jesus' stories and admonitions of 12.35-48 correspond to his parable of the dishonest steward. I now believe 12.35-48 bears more similarities to other pericopes in Luke. Reasons (and queries) follow:

1. The master is going to gird himself for a table meal with his servants (12.37; see also 12.35). This is a practice for Israel during their feasting of Passover (Exodus 12.11). Might these robes be priestly? Also, during Passover, Israel ate unleavened bread (Ex12.8). I wonder if this has anything to do with Jesus' comment on the leaven of the Pharisees in 12.1.

2. The thief of 12.39 most certainly refers to Jesus, as his unexpected coming seems to be the dominant theme, according to the conclusion of 12.40. But here, I get confused. In 12.35-36 Jesus encourages his followers to be ready as ones awating their master's return. So, in v35 it seems as though the master represents Jesus. But, in v39 things change - unless the "householder" of v39 does not refer to the "master" of 25-28, which would make for an even more confusing admonition.

3. In 12.40, the disciples are admonished to fulfill the role of the aforementioned servants/master: to be ready for the arrival of the thief. If the servants once again represent the corrupt priesthood and if the master represents the high priest (as in Luke 16.1ff.), then perhaps Jesus is admonishing his disciples to take up the priestly duties.

4. Notice that in 12.41ff. Jesus modifies the master-servant scenario to the master-steward, just as that of Luke 16.1ff.

5. In 12.42, Luke uses the terms "measures of grain" (sitometrion) where Matthew simply says "food" (trophe). I wonder if these measures of grain are temple-oriented. I wonder if the "grain" of 12.42 corresponds to the "grain" stored up by the rich fool in 12.18. In both cases, the servants/fool disregard the coming sudden judgment/return in favor of fattening themselves (and, in the case of the servants, beating the other servants).

6. In 12.42, the measures of grain are to be given "at the proper time" (en kairo). This same term is used in 20.10 (though without the definite article) of the wicked tenants, whom Richard and I have identified as the corrupt priests. Apparently, there was a "proper time" at which offerings were collected or measures (of grain [here] or fruit [as in ch. 20]) were given. The steward who distributes the grain to the household will be blessed by the master (12.43f.). But, if these "stewards/servants...beat the servants, and to eat, drink, and get drunk", then the unexpected master will return to punish. Interestingly, the wicked tenants were guilty of beating the servants of the master in chapter 20. Also interesting, the eating and drinking corresponds nicely with that of the rich fool (12.19). It seems to me that these bear priestly significances.

7. After this pericope, Jesus declares that his mission is not one of peace, but division. The details of that declaration include this: "henceforth, in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided , father against son and son against father..." (12.52-53). I wonder if Luke is probing at Theophilus. Theophilus was one of five brothers. All five of them, and their father Annas, served as high priests. Perhaps this lies behind Jesus' reference to "five divided" all being of "one house". If so, then the "father" represents Annas and the "son" represents Theophilus. I realize other family members are mentioned. But this can easily be explained as Luke's using Jesus' originally general statement regarding family division as an application to Theophilus' specific situation.

8. Luke's Jesus closes in 12.48 with one of his syllogistic maxims: "To whom much is given, much is required...". Note other similar maxims in Luke, and to whom they are addressed: 7.47: to the Pharisee Simon; 16.10: to the dishonest steward - both of whom represent the priestly leadership!

Two final notes:

1. Leviticus 7.1-10 gives the priests legitimate rights to eat the remains of Israel's offerings. I wonder if in Jesus' day the priests were taking advantage of this practice, as 12.18f.; 45ff. perhaps demonstrate.

2. Luke 12.48 refers to unknowingly doing wrong. Leviticus 4.2-12 speaks to priests who sin unkowingly. Is there any significance there?

I know there is much more to be said here. I will continue to investigate.

Copyright 2007

Unintentional Cognitive Association?

2007-05-19T18:11:00.000-07:00

Richard and I have been working on possible associations between Ezra and Luke. Richard has posted here, here, here, here, and here, and I here on the possible parallels. I cannot help but think that there is a link the the "friends" of Luke 16.8-9 and the "friends" of Artaxerxes who gave Ezra the permissions and blessing and resources for trekking to Jerusalem (1 Esdras 8.11, 13, 26; cf. Jos. Ant. 11.5.2, where Ezra gained "great favor" from Artaxerxes).

Might there also be a correlation between the twelve priests Ezra chose (1 Esdras 8.54) and the twelve disciples Jesus chose? (Though Richard does not agree with my assertion that Luke is portraying Jesus as the new high priest, I think this detail, if valid, may strengthen my case. We both agree that the primary significance of Jesus' choosing of the twelve has more to do with the twelve tribes of Israel.) I believe that Jesus is condemning the temple establishment, and against that backdrop of condemnation, he is admonishing his disciples to be faithful in those areas in which the priests have failed. If there is something to this possible correlation between Luke and Ezra (1 Esdras), I'm convinced it has to do with Jesus' condemnation of the temple and admonition to his followers. But that might be a point at which my imagination has taken over.

I have considered one other possibility. I know that when I recall stories of my childhood (whether stories of my lifetime or stories of old), and intend to relate those stories to others or to my current situation, I (often unintentionally) use the same rhetoric used by those who related the stories to me from the beginning, whether in print or oral. Applied to Luke, I wonder if perhaps Luke (or Jesus?) has intentionally pointed to Ezra by way of allusion (as with the parallels of intermarriage, divorce, choosing of the twelve, and the identical offerings in identical measures), but unintentionally included certain details which might lead one to believe that Jesus means to apply that story to himself and his followers (as with the mention of "friends"). I don't know of a technical term for this phenomenon, but I imagine it has something to do with unintentional cognative association. Is there such a thing?

I intend to post on the details of my initial assertions that Luke's Jesus alludes to Ezra's narrative in his parables. These include both verbal and conceptual allusions: intermarriage, divorce, choosing of twelve, identical offerings in identical measures. I also intend to further investigate the idea of unintentional cognitive association.

Copyright 2007

Themes in Luke

2007-05-19T17:57:00.000-07:00

In the previous post, I suggested that the parable of the wicked tenants is the culminating point of Jesus' criticism of the priesthood, of which the priests became well aware (Luke 20.19). I believe that in the Gospel records, Jesus' final speeches bear enourmous weight. (Recall my comment regarding Luke 24.50-51.) Just before the process of his arrest, trial, death and resurrection in the Gospels, Jesus is recorded as packing everything he has previously taught into tight speeches (see esp. John 12, which contains elements of every episode of Jesus' life and teachings up to that point; see also Matthew's Olivet discourse). It's as though he's trying to give his followers a final word in hopes that they'll remember everything - sort of like a farewell under fire, though not so nervously. But the information relayed by these writers comes as most urgent, even neglecting any narrative signposts (as in John 14-17, which contain no setting indicators whatsoever).

I see Luke progressively growing his story in this kind of direction, beginning in ch. 14, and culminating in 21, closing with a word of his coming. Luke 20.46-47 is a magnificent example of this phenomenon. Note the parallels:

20.46 // 7.31-32 = The scribes and Pharisees love the market places and publicity.

20.46 // 14.7-11 = Pharisees love places of honor.

20.46 // 11.43 (7.31-32?) = Parisees love the best seats in the synagogues and salutations in the marketplace.

20.47 // 21.1-4 = The widows in poverty are vidicated against their adversaries.

20.47 // 18.9-14 = Pharisees love long prayers.

These parallels perhaps indicate what Jesus' emphases were throughout his ministry. Luke 20.46-47 then would be a brief synopsis of important themes in his teachings - important enough to merit mention at this point in Luke's story. He then moves to topics of his coming and the temple's coming destruction.

Copyright 2007

Thoughts on Jesus' Parables in Luke

2007-05-14T11:26:00.000-07:00

Richard once posted on Luke's parable of the unjust steward (Lk16.1-13). I had some initial notes on Richard's thoughts which I had not made public. After rereading them today, I feel that they may bear some relevance, or at least point us in a right direction for better conclusions. My initial thoughts on Jesus' parable of the unjust steward, and the other parables told in Luke 15-20, prompted by Richard's post:

1) The parable of the wicked tenants (Lk20.9-16) is the only parable after Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. If the "step progression method" is being used by Jesus in Luke [as suggested by Richard], then we should expect that Jesus has fully finished his indictment on the priesthood with this parable - a notion which is validated by the priests' reaction in 20.19.

2) Jeremias has suggested that the chief priests were constitued by a small number, maybe 15-20 persons [the citation elludes me at present]. Perhaps the 10 servants of Luke 19.13 represent the chief priests of Jesus' day. Again, the chief priests recognized that they were the ones under attack in these parables (cf. 19.47-48; 20.1, 19).

3) Concerning the parable of the prodigal son (15.11-32) - perhaps figure of the younger son is meant to represent the office of the high priest, and not a specific priest. If so, then the son's departure and squandering of possessions (mirrored again in 16.1, of the dishonest steward, whom we believe to be the high priest) might refer to the corruption of the priesthood. Conversely, the son's return, coming to his senses, and reception of a celebration might refer to Jesus as the high priest, reconstituting the office of high priest as a faithful priest [cf. my post here], contra those "dishonest" and "unfaithful" and "wicked" folk normally employed to represent the high priest. In essense, Jesus is perhaps saying that one day the high priesthood will be worthy (contra the "unworthiness" of those previously holding that office, 15.19).

Additionally, NT Wright has argued that 15.24, 32 refers to resurrection, of Israel's "true return from exile" (Luke for Everyone, SPCK, p. 188). But what if Jesus meant to refer to his own resurrection? The story hinges on that one event, when the son who was "once dead is now alive, once lost is found" (15.24, 32). If the son represents the office of the high priesthood, then the son's resurrection and return would constitute a reconstitution of the faithfulness of the high priesthood. And, according to Jesus, who would bring that about? Jesus explicitly refers to a resurrection as the turning point in this story. Would it not be ironic if he did not mean his own resurrection, which he were to accomplish only days later?

Finally, note the elder son's accusation of the younger, that he "devoured [the father's] living with harlots". I wonder if perhaps the elder son represents the corrput priests of Jesus' day who accused Jesus of mingling with sinners throughout his ministry.

4) Notice these parallels in Luke, Jesus' use of maxims to convey the same general idea at the close of various parables and teachings: 7.41-43; 12.48; 14.11; 16.10; 18.14, 28-30; 19.17. Richard has suggested [somewhere!!!] that Luke is using Ezekiel's maxim-practice.

Again, these are initial thoughts made in early December 2006 following a post by Richard on Luke's parable of the unjust steward.

Copyright 2007

Theophilus and the Rich Young Ruler

2007-05-13T21:19:00.000-07:00

I have been contemplating Luke's story of the rich young ruler in Luke 18. Might he be a young Theophilus? Some notes:

1. A priest (like the lawyer of Luke 10) would no doubt have been well-versed in and in full compliance with the Law. If Jesus had a conversation with a young member of the priestly family, the Law would no doubt have been a point of departure, conversationally.

2. The ruler's response (18.23) seems odd, as though he is unable to relinquish his riches. This would certainly be true of a member of the high priestly family, he himself expected to reign someday.

3. Jesus concludes the pericope with a statement of leaving family (18.29-30). If the ruler was of priestly stock, this admonition would have hit home deeply. So far as I can tell, though Jesus addressed this comment ot Peter, it still was a public statement, within the ruler's hearing.

4. Luke 10.25-37 is a parallel event, where a lawyer approaches Jesus with the same question as the ruler: "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus' subsequent story of the good neighbor involves a priest and a Levite, both of whom are corrupt. Might this be an indication that that both the lawyer and the ruler are of priestly descent?

If the ruler is indeed our young Theophilus, perhaps Jesus' call to abandon his riches and family is what caused Theophilus to initially reject Jesus. If so, the Luke's inclusion of this story might be giving Theophilus' rejection of Jesus a new context from which to present Jesus to Theohilus.

I have considered why Matthew and Mark both include this story where they do not include other pericopes unique to Luke which have priestly significance, specifically of Theophilus' family. I think the safest response would be that these stories were handed down by other witnesses as well, and Luke, perhaps drawing from those accounts, recognized the significance of them, and thus included them, where the other Gospel writers did not see their significance regarding a specific priest.

Copyright 2007

Theophilus in Acts?

2007-05-13T21:13:00.000-07:00

I have been wondering if Theophilus was a Sadducee. Here are my clues:

1. Sadducees deny the resurrection, angels, and spirits (or spiritual existence) (cf. Acts 23.6ff.; Josephus).

2. Luke makes much of angels (Luke 1.11, 13, 18-19, 26, 30, 34-35, 38; 2.9-10, 13, 15, 21; 4.10; 9.26; 12.8-9; 15.10; 16.22; 20.36; 22.43; 24.23; Acts 5.19; 6.15; 7.30, 35, 38, 53; 8.26; 10.3, 7, 22; 11.13; 12.7-11, 15, 23; 23.8-9; 27.23).

3. Luke has an extended resurrection narrative, including an ascension into heaven as realm of spiritual existence (Luke 24.1-52; Acts 1.1ff.).

4. Luke most often names the high priest(s) in question [I need to find references to all mentions by name of high priests]. However, in 5.17ff (cf. also 4.1), he simply refers to a high priest without naming him. In both instances, that high priest is said to be of the party of the Sadducees. Why not name him here?

Can it be demonstrated with relative certainty that Acts 5.17 (and 4.1ff?) constitutes events post-37AD, when Theophilus was serving as HP? It comes on the heels of a general summary statement with no indication of time span (5.12-16), common in the early chapters of Acts (2.42-47; 4.32ff; 5.12-16; 5.42). There was probably a 14 year gap between Acts 9 and 13, between Paul's conversion and his ministry beginning (according to Galatians). What can also say with relative certainty (with the majority of scholars) that Acts 8, the "Samaritan Pentecost", must have been a number of years after the Pentecost event of Acts 2. Can we know what time Acts 6 and 7 depicts, it being a single event (Stephen's sermon and stoning)? If so, then maybe we can come close to determining when Acts 5 took place, and whether or not Theophilus was the unusually-anonymous high priest of 5.17, thus making him a Sadducee, according to the text.

Copyright 2007

Luke's Geneaology Revisited

2007-05-12T09:16:00.000-07:00

I have previously tried to make sense of Luke's genealogy: here, here, and here. It seems to me that Luke has included a number of patriarchal and priestly names not present in Matthew's account. One detail mentioned by Goulder in Luke: A New Paradigm (pp. 289f.), referring to Jeremias' Jerusalem at the Time of Jesus (pp. 213-221, 275-302), caught my attention: "Jeremias gives evidence of contemporary keeping of genealogies; but this is mainly by priestly families for whom purity was important, and the presence of the names Levi, Simeon, Judah and Joseph is agreed by Jeremias to be unknown in the pre-exilic period." If it is true that genealogies are kept for the sake of purity, and if I have been correct to give significance to the priestly names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus, perhaps then Luke is in fact demonstrating Jesus' purity and right to fulfill the prophecy as told in 1 Samuel 2.35, among others.

Further, Goulder: "In any case the stylized pattern of the Geneaology forbids taking it as in any sense historical" (289). I am pleased to find scholars making such conclusions. I recall that Fitzmyer (AB, the source being away from me at present) suggests that Luke's genealogy is more accurate historically than Matthew on accounts of Luke's number of generations and Matthew's artificial patterns of 14 generations. Kuhn's delineation of two lists works, though I prefer my own explanation so far, with Zerubbabel holding a place of prominence among a string of otherwise unknown names. All of this considered, Luke's "stylized pattern" must be accounted for non-historically and in light of Luke's initial reader, whom I assert was the high priest of 37-41CE.

Finally, Goulder (p. 291) notes that in Luke 3.24, Jobed does not accord with the genealogies of 1Chron2.12 and Ruth4.21, which read Obed. However, Luke agrees with Matthew. After having searched briefly through Stoldt's History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis, I am growing convinced of Lukan priority. The agreement between Matthew and Luke here against the OT records probably demonstrates dependence on the part of either writer. Of course, there could have been an addtional source known to both, but no known source precludes such a conclusion if another suits well. And, since Matthew's genealogy seems less strategic in name choice, Luke's reading of Jobed is most probably to be preferred. This suits well with what can be deduced from Luke's work.

Copyright 2007

What Luke Assumed Theophilus Would Have Known and Recognized

2007-05-11T20:33:00.000-07:00

It is asserted here (and here) that Luke wrote to Theophilus the high priest of 37-41CE. I have wondered for years what this Theophilus would have known, assumed, and recognized in Luke's writings. How many of Luke's named characters would Theophilus have known, either personally or by reputation? What events would Theophilus have understood as particularly significant?

Theophilus' family members included two high priests significant to Luke's Jesus story: Annas (father) and Caiaphas (brother-in-law), listed in Luke 3.2. Archaeological evidence links a Johanna to Theophilus the high priest. Luke mentions Johanna in 8.3; 24.10. Most probably, Theophilus would have known (of) Zechariah the priest, who served in the temple in the days of Herod (1.5, 8, 9), and who is mentioned by Luke in 3.2 following Annas and Caiaphas. He probably knew much concerning Zechariah's son, John. John, having been put to death by Herod (3.19-20; cf. Matt 14.6-12), would have been a familiar subject to both Theophilus and Johanna, who married Herod's steward, Chuza (8.3).

Now concerning John:

For some reason, it is a popular position in NT scholarship to assert that John was NOT associated with the Qumran sect. The reasoning generally rests upon the lack of any explicit reference to John's association with Qumran, and any lack of specific location for John's wilderness and Jordan ventures. But, what if this reasoning is incorrect? We know from the Dead Sea scrolls that Qumran was a counter-temple sect: the people retreated into the wilderness because they thought the priesthood was corrupt. If Luke were to describe anyone coming from the south Jordan region doing and preaching things similar to what we find in the scrolls, then would it have been necessary to explicitly say that individual was from the Qumran sect, especially considering the recipient, Theophilus, was a member of the temple establishment and would have been most familiar with counter-temple movements such as Qumran?

Aside from his close proximity to Qumran, there are other elements to John's life which indicate that he would have been considered a temple defiant. His baptism was of repentance and for the remission of sins. These ethical standards were sanctioned by the temple establishment, not individual radicals in the countryside and wilderness. These were temple rituals, performed by the priesthood. John's declaration that a person was free from sin because of his baptism in the Jordan river would have been seen as counter-temple to any first century Jew. Theophilus would have recognized these details in Luke's story.

Now concerning Jesus:

Since John was Jesus' forerunner, it follows that Jesus was probably most interested in John's agenda. And since John is portrayed as a temple-defiant, might the same be true of Jesus? Luke cites Isaiah 40.3-5, a favorite Qumran text, to describe John, the one "preparing the way" for Jesus (Luke 3.4-6). Jesus likewise cited Isaiah to describe his own ministry (Isaiah 58.6; 60.1-2 in Luke 4.18-19). And Jesus contrasted John with those who are "beautifully adorned in palaces" (Luke 7.25), an adequate description of the priesthood. (It might also be that Luke is contrasting John's ministry with that of the priesthood in 3.2ff.) Jesus' acceptance of John's ministry as a contrasting or competitive effort was widely known. He even employed some of John's language in his own preaching (compare, for example, Luke 3.7ff. [and Matthew 3.7ff.] with Matthew 12.33; 23.33).

Jesus himself behaved like a counter-temple movement. Luke 4.1ff. tells of Jesus' retreat from the Jordan into the wilderness, the wilderness region previously identified with John, being the starting point for his own ministry, and to which he returned at times (5.16). By saying that Jesus was "led away by the Holy Spirit...into the wilderness", perhaps Luke is suggesting that it was divinely intended or authorized that Jesus became identified with (and eventually assumed for himself the role of) a counter-temple movement. Jesus forgave sins (Luke 5.21-24; 7.36-50; 15.11-32; 23.40-43). (Interestingly, in 5.21-24 Jesus links his authority [ezousian] to forgive sins with his being the Son of Man - a trait possibly linked to the one like a son of man in Daniel 7.13-14 [LXX], who is given dominion [ezousia]. Crispin Flether-Louis has argued successfully that Daniel 7 is a high priestly text, and that Jesus interpreted it for himself with this in mind.) On occasion, after having healed someone, Jesus sent that one to present him-/herself to the priests. While it might be suggested that Jesus was simply obeying the Law of Moses in sending those healed to the temple, most probably Jesus was demonstrating that what was previously sanctioned by the priesthood (confirming healings) had been transferred to him. Two details of Luke 5.12-15 help exemplify this: 1) Jesus assumed that the rite detailed in the Law remained legitimate (see Leviticus 13.2-17, 49; 14.2-9). 2) Jesus desired to "prove to them" (the priests) that his work was legitimate. He did what priests did, and therefore was in no need of the temple priesthood. His work was sanctioned by God. The temple needed cleansing (Luke 19.45-46), and Jesus predicted its destruction (21.5-6). He was, in essense, counter-temple.

Theophilus the high priest of 37-41CE would have recognized all of this immediately upon reading it. This is why Luke mentions these details - to give his Jesus story a force only a high priest could appreciate.

Copyright 2007

Trip to Iowa

2007-05-11T11:34:00.000-07:00

I am currently in Iowa City, IA, visiting my brother at UI. While here, I plan to visit the university library, reading the likes of Stoldt, Farmer, Goulder, Streeter, and Lockton on the synoptic problem, as well as a source from Gaston on word statistics of the synoptics. Any significant findings will be posted here.

Though I have been using this blog primarily to post extended studies, I intend to begin posting all data relevant to Lukan studies, as my memory and filing system has proven faulty of late.

New Homepage

2007-05-06T15:38:00.000-07:00

I have created a new homepage, where I intend to offer rough papers on the New Testament. Most of the material presented there will most likely have been addressed here or on my Romans blog. My hope is to eventually have something worth publishing.

Luke 2.40-52: Jesus the Child

2007-05-04T07:58:00.000-07:00

Luke 2.40-52 and 1 Samuel 2-3

Luke 2.40 and 2.52 act as bookends to the story of Jesus' childhood experience in the temple. At the age of twelve, Jesus accompanied his parents on their customary annual journey (2.42) to Passover. Upon returning to their hometown, Jesus' parents noticed his absence, and turned back to Jerusalem to find him in the temple with the Jewish teachers, who were astonished at his questions and answers.

Why does Luke (alone) include this single detail of Jesus' childhood? If he, with his family, made the trip every year, what made this particular year significant, or at least worth mentioning? There a couple of reasons why Luke's audience, Theophilus the high priest of 37-41 CE, might have found the story significant.

Theophilus was the son of Annas, high priest from 8-15 CE. Annas would have been the high priest during the twelve-year-old Jesus' visit. Theophilus would perhaps have been familiar with the story from his own childhood. The fact that "all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers" (2.47) might have resonated with Theophilus.

Secondly, Luke 2.40-52 is a strong parallel to 1 Samuel 2-3. Luke three times mentions the “growth” of a child: 1.80, of young John the Baptist; 2.40 and 2.52, of young Jesus. Between the latter two we find the story of Jesus in the temple. There are three such comments in 1 Samuel 2-3 as well: 2.21; 2.26; 3.19, all concerning young Samuel. Between the latter two we find a detail of the corruption of the priesthood and God’s plan to make adjustments. Is Luke suggesting that the priesthood of Jesus' day was corrupt just as the priesthood of Samuel's day? Perhaps…

Like Jesus' family, little Samuel's family was accustomed to making an annual trek to make sacrifice (1 Samuel 2.19; see also 1.3, 21). Though the text of 1 Samuel does not give Samuel’s age, Jewish historian Josephus has somehow come to conclude he was twelve at the time of God's calling him to prophesy (Ant. 5.10.4[348]).[1]

A cursory read of the story of 1 Samuel 2-3 will reveal a striking parallel to Luke's story:

After the "growth" comment in 2.26, the writer details why God has turned against the priesthood, blaming Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas (2.12ff.). God promised that they would drop dead, and that he would raise up a faithful priest. (2.34-35). The passage contains four references to "your father’s house" (2.27, 28, 30, 31). Samuel's mother had made for him a "linen ephod" to wear on the annual trips to sacrifice (2.18). This is one of God’s requirements of the priests when "going before [him]" (2.28). Eli had favored his sons more than God (3.29). So, God promised to remove Eli's sons and place his own priest in charge. From 3.1-18, we get the idea that Samuel fits the requirements God had established for the priests, thus seemingly fulfilling the promise to "raise up for myself a faithful high priest"(2.35). Though Samuel did not serve as a priest proper, he did perform many of the priestly duties.

Luke has shown the corruption of the priesthood in Theophilus' day, using the family members of Theophilus as examples of such corruption.[2] Jesus' outstanding character before the teachers in the temple demonstrate that God's hand is upon him, that just as young Samuel was called by God for service so God was calling young Jesus. Jesus' question to his parents upon their finding him was, "Did you not know that I must be in my father’s house?" (Luke 2.49, emphasis added). Perhaps this is an allusion to God's fulfilling his promise to raise up a faithful priest in "a sure house", "your father's house" (1 Samuel 2.30, 35, emphasis added).

I suspect that Luke told the story of Jesus' childhood to establish to Theophilus that Jesus is the eschatological [high] priest, fulfilling the promise God made in 1 Samuel 2. Luke has subtly pointed to data personal to Theophilus (such as Annas' witness of the twelve-year-old Jesus) to prove his case. The story of Eli's sons is perhaps the best known story of the Jewish priesthood's corruption. For Luke to parallel Jesus' childhood experience to that of Samuel's in a context where the corrupt priesthood is specifically targeted by God, who promised to raise up a faithful priest for his house, would have given his story special leverage, being addressed to a certain high priest.

Four extra tidbits which might help establish a relationship between Luke and 1 Samuel:

1. Hannah, Samuel's mother, after Samuel was born, exalted God (1 Samuel 2.1-10). When Mary visited Elizabeth to share her good news, Mary magnified the Lord in similar fashion (Luke 1.46-55). Just as in Samuel's story Hannah's prayer precedes the story of Samuel's boyhood experience, so also in Luke's story Mary's prayer precedes the childhood experience of Jesus. If Luke were drawing attention by was of parallel, this is yet another indicator to his that he is doing so.

2. There is in both a comment that "this shall be a sign unto you" in close proximity to the stories in question (1 Samuel 2.34; Luke 2.12).

3. There is a formulaic "X blessed X" found in both contexts (1 Samuel 2.20; Luke 2.34).

4. In 1 Samuel 2.36, God says that the destitute will come to his faithful priest begging for a piece of silver or a morsel of bread. Perhaps passages such as Luke 14.1-24; 15.8, 17 (as a negative correlation) mean to fulfill this in some way.

Footnotes:

[1] There is also a slight parallel of Luke's comment about Jesus' growth with that of a young Moses in Jos. Ant. 2.9.6[228-231].
[2] See my post: http://ltdahn-stluke.blogspot.com/2006/11/identifying-theophilus.html.

Copyrighted 2007

Luke 16.19-31: The Rich Man and Lazarus

2007-05-03T09:57:00.000-07:00

I thought it important to finish my thougths on Luke 16, having posted on 16.1-18 below.

Luke's story of the rich man and Lazarus has sparked much debate regarding issues of the afterlife. Some argue over whether or not the story is a parable. (If so, this is the only one in which Jesus names a player.) This study hopes to look beyond such debates, to find the kernel of Jesus' presentation based on the given textual data.

I have argued elsewhere that Jesus’ teachings found in GLuke implicate the priesthood. I believe this story to be one such instance. Five points demonstrate:

1. The rich man is said to be "clothed in purple and fine linen" (Luke 16.19). This is a description of the high priestly garments, according to Exodus 39.27-29: "The also make the coats, woven of fine linen, for Aaron and his sons, and the turban of fine linen, and the caps of fine linen, and the linen breeches of fine twined linen, and the girdle of fine twined linen and of blue and purple and scarlet stuff, embroidered with needlework; as the Lord had commanded Moses" (see also Leviticus 16.4). The apocryphal book of Sirach says likewise: "[The Lord] clothed [Aaron] in perfect splendor...with the sacred vestment, of gold and violet and purple, the work of an embroiderer" (45.8-11). Josephus notes the same: "[In Alexander's presence] The priests stood clothed with fine linen, and the high priest in purple scarlet clothing..." (Antiquities 11.8.5 [331]). So, Jesus' description of this rich man matches that of the high priest.

2. In Jesus' story, Lazarus laid "at his [the rich man's] gate" (Luke 16.20). This might very well refer to the gate which guarded the temple. Luke, in Acts 3.2, 10, mentions another beggar at the temple gate, there called Beautiful.[1]

3. Jesus' story may have some close ties to the story told in John 11, in which Jesus raises his friend Lazarus from the dead. First, note the aftermath of the miracle in John 11.47-53. Caiaphas the high priest sought to retaliate against Jesus' raising of Lazarus (11.49ff.). Second, note that Caiaphas was a member of the Sadducees (Acts 5.17). Some of the priests were Sadducees, some were Pharisees (see Acts 23.6). The Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead, angels, and the spirit (Acts 23.8). Jesus' story in Luke 16 includes all three of these elements: allusion to Lazarus' resurrection, angels carrying Lazarus' body away, and several conscious figures after death. Jesus used this data to create an ironic story to show the priesthood's corruption. Luke’s ironic story then is perhaps a creative telling of John’s history.

4. The rich man in Jesus' story is said to have five brothers (Luke 16.27-28). It has been argued both here at this blog and at Richard Anderson’s blog that Luke wrote to Theophilus the high priest of 37-41 CE. This Theophilus had four brothers (Mattathias, Annanas, Johnathan, and Eliezer), one brother-in-law (Caiaphas), and a father (Annas) who each served as high priest in the first century. If Jesus was exposing the priesthood in his story, which is perhaps an ironic presentation of the raising of Lazarus (as told in John 11), then Caiaphas would have been the rich man in Luke 16. For he had five brothers[-in-law].

If all of this be true, note the irony of Jesus’ tale: Caiaphas the Sadducean high priest, who denied the resurrection from the dead, angels, and the spirit, begged father Abraham to raise Lazarus from the dead and send him as a witness to his family, to warn them of the coming judgment. Abraham's reply: "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets [which they surely knew well], neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead [emphasis added]."

Perhaps the greater irony: Jesus DID raise Lazarus from the dead! It was that fact that Caiaphas scoffed (John 11.49ff.).

Footnote:

[1] I have briefly studied the terms for “gate” as they appear in Luke’s writings, as well as other literature. I did not find anything which seemed significant to my case here. Further study may prove otherwise, in which case I’ll modify this point.

Final comment:

Regarding the high priestly garments:James VanderKam, scholar of Hebrew scriptures, writes: “During the period when the Romans assumed control of Judea, the governor took over [the high priestly garments] and permitted the high priest to have them only during festivals” (An Introduction to Early Judaism, 180). After Herod died, the garments were in the custody of Tiberius (14-37 CE). Then, as a favor, Vitellius (governor of Syria) gave the people back the garments. They remained in Jewish control until the death of Agrippa 1 in 44 CE. When Rome tried to reclaim the garments, the Jewish people sent a delegation to Rome and were apparently granted custody.

VanderKam concludes, “The garment was thought to convey such a powerful impression that the authorities worried about the political and social effect it might have” (181). The apocryphal Sirach 45.6-13 and chapter 50 indicate that the garments bestowed great splendor upon the high priest, Simon at the time (50.11; see also Wisdom of Solomon 18.24). Philo suggests that the garments had cosmic symbolism (Life of Moses, 2.109-126, esp. 2.117ff.). Josephus also gives an elaborate description of the garments (War, 5.6.7 [231-36]). Indeed, he says the high priest was the "captain of [Israel's] salvation" (War, 4.5.2 [318]).

If it is true that these garments bestowed such glory and (political) power upon the high priest, perhaps their absence helps explain why temple-defiant groups emerged. Theophilus, high priest of 37-41 CE, would have been the first in some time to have enjoyed the priestly glory of old. (His father, Annas, high priest of 8-15 CE, would have been the last to wear the garments before Theophilus.)

Copyrighted 2007

Luke 16.1-18: The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward

2007-04-30T13:54:00.000-07:00

Given the numerous (and often bizarre) interpretations of Jesus’ parable of the unrighteous steward as found in Luke 16.1ff., I thought it important to study the text further in hopes to make better sense of it, for both personal and ecclesial purposes. My study has proven fruitful from a personal perspective; I do hope this interpretation proves as fruitful for the church.

I have elsewhere[1] suggested that in Luke 16.19-31, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus is condemning the priesthood, and Caiaphas in particular. The following interpretation helps, I believe, synthesize the whole of Luke 16 (and beyond).

The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward (16.1-8)

This parable has proven to be one of the more difficult passages to interpret. What are we to make of the master’s praising of his “dishonest” steward? What does Jesus mean by “make for yourselves friends by means of unrighteous mammon” (v.9)? Is Jesus calling us to become “shrewd”, like the “dishonest” steward? Is there virtue in the steward’s actions?

I suggest that these are wrong questions. They emanate from the assumption that since 1) Jesus in other parables uses a master-figure to denote God, and 2) at the conclusion of this parable Jesus polarizes two masters, one being mammon and the other being God (v.13), Jesus therefore must mean for the master here to denote God. The stewards then logically become God’s workers, responsible for what he has given them. But perhaps another scenario better fits the data in the text. One follows.

The master is the high priest in Jerusalem.[2] The steward is a lesser priest responsible for the treasury of the temple. The origin for this priestly position, whether permanent or temporary, can be dated at least as far back as Ezra’s day (Ezra 8.24-30, when the priests were commissioned to carry back to Jerusalem the riches and offerings granted by Artaxerxes during the exile).[3] Ezra’s narrative offers more background to Jesus’ parable. In the parable, the debts are specifically stated: “100 baths of oil” and “100 cors of wheat” (vv.6-7). These very measurements appear elsewhere together only in the book of Ezra (7.22)[4], included in the offerings to be taken back to the temple in Jerusalem by the assigned stewards (7.17-28).[5] These commodities, even in these increments, are temple-related wares.[6]

The steward is called “dishonest” because he has failed to collect the sacrifices as was customarily expected of him. Instead, this steward “squandered” his master’s goods.[7] Yet, somehow this activity merits him high praise from the master, the high priest (16.8).

The conclusion that the sons of this world are more shrewd with their own kind/generation than are the sons of light is a call to become shrewd. It is simply a statement of fact which demonstrates the difference between sons of this world and sons of light. Sons of light are not shrewd like those of this world. Sons of light are faithful, righteous, serving God and not mammon (16.10-13).[8]

The Pharisees knew full well the implications of Jesus’ teachings, which is why they become upset (16.14). Their rage compliments the understanding that the master and the steward denote temple authorities, and the storied activities denote the regular dealings in the temple.

Ethical Exhortations from the Parable (16.9-13)

If this reading of Jesus’ parable might be accepted, then the difficult questions surrounding the traditional interpretations begin to dissipate. For example, most interpreters assert that Jesus is admonishing his followers to become like the dishonest steward in 16.9. On the contrary, if we understand the players to be not God and his servants, but rather the temple establishment, then Jesus’ admonition is for his followers to not be like the steward. The steward knows his source of income is doomed to fail (vv.3-4). As a result, he compromises the debts owed so that he might keep his job. He tries to gain the favor of his debtors by reducing their debt in the hope of gaining their friendship so that when his means of income fails, they might receive him into their homes. In reality, instead of trusting in his friends and remaining honest, he becomes “shrewd” and “dishonest” in order to keep his position, his means of wealth. In that, he was successful. But Jesus has something else in mind for his followers. They are to remain honest and faithful in even little things (vv.10-11) and make friends by means of unrighteous mammon so that when (hotan) that means of income fails, they might be received into “eternal homes”. They are to make friends beforehand so that they need not resort to shrewdness and thus become dishonest and unfaithful, slaves of mammon and not of God (v.13).

Four points from 16.10-13 demonstrate that Jesus is not commending but condemning shrewdness:

1. In the syllogistic saying of verse 10, Jesus is saying that even the slightest episode of dishonesty proves the magnitude of the individual’s/individuals’ actual dishonesty. In other words, the dishonest steward is not worthy of continuing his regular duties. His little episode of dishonesty demonstrates the magnitude of his dishonest heart (16.10, 15). The master ought to have followed through with his threat to terminate the steward’s account. But, the fact that the master does not follow through with his threat demonstrates his own dishonesty as well. If Jesus is commending the “dishonest” steward’s shrewdness, then his claim in verse 10 loses force – for how can the key “dishonest” individual of Jesus’ own story contradict his moral conclusion to not be dishonest even in the little things?!

2. In verse 11, Jesus is saying that one’s eventual handling of “true riches” is directly proportionate to his handling of “unrighteous mammon”. In other words, the dishonest steward forfeits his right to “true riches” because of his dealings with “unrighteous mammon”. Again, if Jesus is commending the steward for his dealings, then his moral conclusion loses all force.

3. In verse 12, Jesus is saying that reception of “that which is your own” is directly proportionate to one’s handling of “that which is another’s”. In other words, the steward is in jeopardy of losing anything “of his own” because he has mishandled (“squandered”, v.1) another’s goods. There is nothing commendable in the steward’s dealings as regards the eventual gain of something better.

4. In verse 13, Jesus is saying that homage to two masters, God and mammon, will not work. In other words, the steward, who should have remained faithful and honest in his dealings, pays more homage to mammon that to God, and is not really concerned with his integrity and trusting in his friends to help him when mammon fails him. Simply put, because of the steward’s shrewd dishonesty, mammon did not fail him. His friends did not need to bail him out because he learned how to manipulate the situation through dishonesty, for which he forfeits any future “true” gain.

Understood in this way, Jesus can hardly be understood as commending the steward for his shrewdness. Actually, Jesus in 16.10-13 is demonstrating that the temple establishment is corrupt for worshiping mammon rather than God, that it is slave to the master of mammon.

Reaction and Further Comment (16.14-18)

The Pharisees, being lovers of money and recognizing the implications of Jesus’ teaching against the temple establishment, become enraged and scoff at him. Jesus unequivocally retorts: “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God” (16.15). It is interesting that very little objective criteria has been offered as grounds for judging the Pharisees abominable. Simply denouncing them because they love money can be somewhat arbitrary, even slanderous. But Jesus immediately introduces the objective standard by which the Pharisees judge even themselves: the Law.

John the Baptist came preaching about the kingdom. His was not a message about the Law specifically. He warned of coming judgment and prepared the way for the Messiah. Jesus points that out, saying that until John’s coming the Law had been thoroughly preached. Since John and up to Jesus’ ministry, the kingdom and coming judgment had been stressed. Then Jesus brings the relevant contrast: “But [de] it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void” (16.17). He contrasts the message of the kingdom with the message of the Law, saying that even though in recent memory the Law had taken a back seat to the kingdom, the Law is still firmly binding. These Pharisees cannot escape the Law’s requirements. The coming of the kingdom does not eradicate the Law’s presence. Heaven and earth will first pass away before the Law ceases to be effective.

Jesus then gives on example, of which the Pharisees must have been guilty: divorce. This saying has been puzzling for many interpreters, seemingly random in its placement here, as though Luke remembered it and needed to fit it in somewhere. But, the above interpretation helps keep the chapter a cohesive unit. Notice the logic of thought through Jesus’ teaching and Luke’s writing:

1. The temple leaders are guilty of dishonesty and unfaithfulness (16.1-8).
2. Jesus gives moral exhortation based on his parable (16.9-13).
3. The Pharisees recognize Jesus’ denouncement of their sacred throng and scoff at him (16.14).
4. Jesus reacts by revealing their abominable deeds – deeds which men exalt (16.15).
5. Jesus continues by reminding of the ever-present, ever-effective Law (16.16-17).
6. The two abominable deeds mentioned are unrighteousness (or shrewdness, or unfaithfulness – all of which describe the same individuals 16.1-13) and divorce (16.18).
[7. Jesus tells the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (16.19ff.).[9]]

And so Luke 16.1-18 reads as a cohesive unit.

A Final Note Regarding Divorce

Interestingly the narrative in Ezra described above concludes with an issue of mass divorce. In Ezra’s day, the priests and Levites had married foreign women (Ezra 9.1-10.44), against the command of God (Leviticus 18.24-30). As a result, Ezra commanded all of those guilty to divorce their wives for the sake of purity (10.4; et al). Perhaps the Pharisees of Luke 16 were guilty of divorcing their wives in haste, or something along those lines. Perhaps they considered Ezra’s story to be adequate grounds for divorcing their wives, under the guise of purifying themselves when in reality the motives were corrupt. We are not told why these Pharisees may have been guilty of divorce. Jesus simply reminds them that the Law is not a forgotten standard, and that the prohibition of divorce specifically still stands. I find it fascinating that both Luke and Ezra end these pericopes with the issue of divorce.

Footnotes:

[1] http://ltdahn-stluke.blogspot.com/2006/11/rich-man-and-lazarus.html; and now the post immediately following: http://ltdahn-theophilus.blogspot.com/2007/05/luke-1619-31-rich-man-and-lazarus.html.
[2] I believe Luke writes assuming that Theophilus will know exactly what he means by his referents, not only here but throughout his Gospel, and therefore does not employ the indicators which seem necessary for us moderns. If Theophilus was well-versed in temple culture, then employing language of that culture would suffice in getting Luke’s point across. I believe the “master” of 12.41-48, a text remarkably similar to our text in chapter 16, also refers to the high priest.
[3] Josephus mentions priests of Israel more contemporary of Jesus’ day who fulfilled duties of treasurer as well. [I will include references soon.]
4 There are variations of these measurements in the OT. The closest example apart from Ezra is 2 Chronicles 2.10, mentioning 20,000 baths of oil and 20,000 cors of wheat, and in connection with Solomon’s temple, which indicates that these were temple-related wares. 1 Kings 5.11, a parallel to 2 Chronicles 2.10, mentions 20,000 cors of wheat and a puzzling 20,000 cors of oil, though the Hebrew reads “twenty” cors.
[5] Another possible significance of Ezra, I wonder if the master’s requirement of his steward’s records and payments (Luke 16.1-3) is a violation of Artaxerxes’ decree: “It shall not be lawful to impose tribute, custom, or toll upon any one of the priests, the Levites, the singers, the doorkeepers, the temple servants, or other servants of this house of God” (Ezra 7.24). Of course, this is not to say that Araxerxes’ decree should have been kept even in first century Jerusalem. But the parallel between Luke 16 and Ezra’s tale is perhaps stronger than I’ve previously considered. (See also “A Final Note Regrading Divorce” below.)
[6] This would have been easily recognizable to Jesus’ initial audience, especially the Pharisees, as well as to Luke’s recipient, Theophilus.
[7] Interestingly, the term used here for “squandered” (diaskorpizwn) is the same as that of the prodigal in 15.13 (dieskorpisen).
[8] Luke 16.8 could be understood thus: “The sons of this world are more accepting of shrewdness with their own generation than are the sons of light.” If this be accepted, the mere statement of it is highlighted and a seeming call to become shrewd loses its force.
[9] Again, see http://ltdahn-stluke.blogspot.com/2006/11/rich-man-and-lazarus.html; and now the post immediately following: http://ltdahn-theophilus.blogspot.com/2007/05/luke-1619-31-rich-man-and-lazarus.html.

Copyrighted 2007

Sacred Money

2006-12-11T14:05:00.000-08:00

Richard Anderson has posted about the two different terms Luke uses for "steward". He has followed a lead I'm on, that Luke may be alluding to Ezra in Jesus' parable of the dishonest steward. I have one further comment and one corresponding question, to which I myself hope to find an answer in the very near future.

Comment:

In Josephus' retelling of the Ezra 7-10 story (Ant. 11.5.1ff.), he mentions that Ezra "presented the sacred money to the treasurers, who were of the family of the priests, of silver six hundred and fifty talents, vessels of silver one hundred talents, vessels of gold twenty talents, vessels of brass, that was more precious than gold". I searched Josephus' Antiquities for references to "sacred money". All of them have to do with the temple treasury (11.5.1-2; 14.4.4; 16.2.3 [twice]; 16.6.1-5 [seven times]; 17.10.2-3; and 18.3.2). There is no question who was in charge of "sacred money" in Josephus' work. If "sacred money" is a proper term, its referent is the temple's treasury.

Various other pertinent details regarding this money surfaced in my search. One, the sacred money was misused at times. On several occasions, that money was stolen by Roman soldiers (17.10.2-3) or other political figures and used for unsacred uses - in which cases the chief political figure (such as Herod Agrippa [16.6.4-5]) decreed that anyone stealing the "sacred money" is to be considered "sacreligious" and that the money be returned to the Jews in exact amount (16.6.5). Several complaints were made to those political figures in charge of the respective region (such as made by Nicolaus [16.2.3], complaining to Agrippa). Caesar Augustus himself once decreed that thieves be reprimanded: "If anyone be caught stealing their [Jews'] holy books, or their sacred money, whether it be out of the synagogue or public school, he shall be deemed a sacreligious person, and his goods shall be brought into the public treasury of the Romans" (16.6.2). Pilate was once guilty of such theivery (18.3.2).

This being true, a new question came to me:

If Caesar's decree was effective, as I assume it was, and since it was made before Pilate's thievery of the Jew's sacred money, used to build a water source for Jerusalem (18.3.2), then why wasn't Pilate reprimanded? I did notice that Pilate was summoned to Rome around this time (18.4.1-2). However, Josephus says it involved not the Jews, but the Samaritans whom Pilate had slain.

I was hoping that his summons to Rome was due to his stealing of the temple treasury to build his water source. Since I cannot confirm that, I connot understand why Pilate was not reprimanded for his using the sacred money for unsacred purposes. Even if it was a deal under the table between the priesthood and Pilate, the people would have sent a delegation to the Roman authorities, just as with Nicolaus (16.2.3) and the Samaritans (18.4.2). My thinking is that if Pilate's guilt can be demonstrated, then we can determine whether or not the priesthood was responsible for the money's disappearance (as Richard and I believe Jesus' parable of the unjust steward demonstrates). I realize a known historical instance is not required for Jesus' parable to be implicating the priesthood. I just think that the parable's correspondence to a real historical situation is extremely helpful in proving the case that the priests are those implicated in Jesus' parable.

copyright 2006

John, Jesus, and Counter-temple Movements

2005-04-21T13:31:00.000-07:00

I have been trying to get an idea of what Theophilus would have known, and thus recognized in Luke’s writings. I have organized some queries and assertions below.

Theophilus knew Caiaphas, no doubt, bring his brother-in-law. Is this perhaps why Luke only mentions Annas and Caiaphas as the high priests in Luke 3.2? Would Theophilus have also known Zechariah, John’s father, listed immediately after Annas and Caiaphas in Luke 3.3? Surely Theophilus was very familiar with John the Baptist’s story, his being of the priestly line. John, having been put to death by Herod, would have been a familiar subject to both Theophilus and his granddaughter, Joanna, who married one of Herod’s men, Chuza (cf. Lk8.3).

For some reason, it is a popular position in NT scholarship to assert that John the Baptist was NOT associated with the Qumran sect, not even an Essene. The reasoning generally rests upon the lack of any explicit reference to John's association with Qumran, and any lack of specific location for John's "wilderness" and "Jordan" ventures. But, I am wondering if this reasoning isn't incorrect. We know from the scrolls that Qumran was a counter-temple sect: the people retreated into the wilderness because they thought the priesthood to be corrupt. If Luke were to describe anyone coming from the Qumran and south Jordan region doing and preaching the very things we find in the DSS, then would it have been necessary to explicitly say that individual was from the Qumran sect, especially considering the recipient, Theophilus, was a member of the temple establishment and would have been most familiar with counter-temple movements such as Qumran? Would Theophilus not have recognized John’s behavior and preaching as Qumranic?

In beginning his Gospel with John, an implicit counter-temple movement himself who looks like he once belonged to (or still did?) the Qumran sect, is Luke suggesting that Jesus is interested in counter-temple movements? If John is Jesus' forerunner, and portrayed as a temple-defiant, it seems that Jesus would be colored with John’s agenda. Indeed, Luke cites Isaiah 40.3-5, a favorite Qumran text, to describe John, the one “preparing the way” for Jesus.

Luke 4.1ff. tells of Jesus’ retreat from the Jordan into the wilderness. Is this an indication that Jesus was himself interested in counter-temple movements, by sending him into the wilderness region as a starting point for his ministry? More importantly, is Luke suggesting that it was divinely intended that Jesus become identified with (and eventually assume for himself the role of) a counter-temple movement by having Jesus “led away by the Holy Spirit...into the wilderness”?

I wonder if there is not something behind Jesus’ association with John, counter-temple tendencies, and his own actions regarding the temple establishment that Theophilus would have recognized to be implicating the priesthood.

copyrighted 2005

The High Priestly Garments

2005-04-19T17:48:00.000-07:00

James VanderKam writes: “During the period when the Romans assumed control of Judea, the governor took over [the high priestly garments] and permitted the high priest to have them only during festivals” (An Introduction to Early Judaism, 180). After Herod died, the garments were in the custody of Tiberius (14-37CE). Then, as a favor, Vitellius (governor of Syria) gave the people back the garments. They remained in Jewish control until the death of Agrippa 1 in 44CE. When Rome tried to reclaim the garments, the Jewish people sent a delegation to Rome and were apparently granted custody.

VanderKam concludes, “The garment was thought to convey such a powerful impression that the authorities worried about the political and social effect it might have” (181). Sirach 45.6-13 and chapter 50 indicate that the garments bestowed great splendor upon the high priest, Simon at the time (cf. 50.11). Philo suggests that the garments had cosmic symbolism (Life of Moses, 2.109-126, esp. 2.117ff.). Josephus also gives an elaborate description of the garments (War, 5.231-36).

If it is true that these garments bestowed such glory and (political) power upon the high priest, Theophilus, high priest of 37-41CE, would have been the first in some time to have enjoyed such recognition. These garments would have given legitimacy to the priesthood, a legitimacy not known previously. With Theophilus the Jewish high priesthood gained some level glory and social respect once again.

Might this lend support to the notion that the temple establishment was seen as corrupt by several social groups of the early first century, such as the Qumran sect or John the Baptist’s followers, or even of Jesus’ followers? This might even explain further Jesus' cleansing of the temple, among his other temple-related actions and speeches.

copyrighted 2005

Luke's Genealogy (Part 2a)

2005-04-08T19:55:00.000-07:00

I found in Josephus the mention of “Jeshua the son of Josedek [or Jozadak] the high priest” (Ant. 11.3.10[73]; cf. 20.10.1[231-234], transl . Whiston). As Josephus has it, Jozadak was the high priest when the Israelites were taken captive to Babylon. Jeshua the son of Jozadak was the high priest when they returned and, along with Zerubbabel, built the foundation of the “house of God”, the temple (cf. Ez3.1-2, et al). Imagine the implications if I have been correct in suggesting that, by isolating Zerubbabel in his genealogy, Luke is implying that Jesus (= Jeshua) has come with Zerubbabel to finish building the “house of God”, so predicted in Zechariah 4.9.

N. T. Wright has made much of Jesus’ accomplishing Israel’s “return from exile” (see esp. his Jesus and the Victory of God). Might the notion be correct, especially in light of Luke's play with names - i.e., that Jeshua/Jesus is the high priest who brings the Israelites back from exile and heads the building of the temple?

copyrighted 2005

Luke's Genealogy (Part 2)

2005-04-08T14:10:00.000-07:00

In Luke’s genealogy, the last thirty-seven names (or first chronologically), from God to Nathan, match perfectly, save Luke’s puzzling addition of Admin (3.33b: see Metzger’s Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament on this text), the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1.1-4.9 (cf. also Jos. Ant. 1.3.2 [79], like Luke, descending from Noah to Adam). It is at this point where Luke’s genealogy differs from Matthew’s, who goes from David to Solomon rather than to Nathan. Nathan is said to be the father of Mattatha, the first of the many names having no record elsewhere.

G. Kuhn suggests that the seemingly lengthy genealogy ought to be understood as two shorter lists. (I have not yet acquired Kuhn’s book, but found this information in I. H. Marshall’s commentary on Luke [NIGTC], 159. I hope to read fully Kuhn’s argument.) These shorter lists are to be read as descending parallels, found in 3.23-26 and 3.29-31 (given here in RSV translation):

3.23-26 :::::::: 3.29-31

Jesus :::::::: Joshua
Joseph :::::::: [none]
Heli :::::::: Eliezer
[none] :::::::: Jorim
Matthat :::::::: Matthat
Levi :::::::: Levi
Melchi :::::::: Simeon
Jannai :::::::: Judah
Joseph :::::::: Joseph
Mattathias :::::::: [none]
Amos :::::::: [none]
Nahum :::::::: Jonam
Esli :::::::: Eliakim
Naggai :::::::: Melea
Maath :::::::: Menna
Mattathias :::::::: Mattatha

It is interesting to note that, in the second list, from Levi to Joseph are four partriachal names. This seems deliberate, and accounts for a good deal of the dissimilarity between the two lists. Are these patriarchal figures important to Jesus’ status and honor? Also, there is another reference to the otherwise unknown Melchi in the first list which is not in the second list, but rather in 3.28. Is there any significance? I am reminded of Melchizedek, the “high priest forever”.

Nathan is the next name following Mattatha in 3.31, which continues the descent toward Adam, “son of God” (3.38), the section corresponding to 1 Chronicles 1.1-4.9.

There are, however, several names which are unknown, or at least seem misplaced:

Semein: otherwise unknown
Josech: otherwise unknown
Joda: otherwise unknown
Joanan: otherwise unknown
Rhesa: otherwise unknown (possibly transl. of Aramaic “prince”? so Marshall, 163)
Zerubbabel: son of Shealtiel (1Chr3.19; Neh12.1; Hag1.12, et. al.; cf. Mt1.12)
Shealtiel: father of Zerubbabel (1Chr3.19; Neh12.1; Hag1.12, et. al.; cf. Mt1.12)
Neri: otherwise unknown
Melchi: otherwise unknown
Addi: otherwise unknown
Cosam: otherwise unknown
Elmadam: otherwise unknown
Er: Genesis 46.12-13 reads thus: “The sons of Judah: Er, …Perez…. And the sons of Perez were Hezron…” (cf. also Num26.19; 1Chr2.3). Ruth 4.18-19 reads thus: “Now these are the descendents of Perez: Perez was the father of Hezron, Hezron of Ram, Ram of Amminadab, Amminidab of Nashon, Hashon of Salmon, Salmon of Boaz, Boaz of Obed, Obed of Jesse, and Jesse of David.” The Ruth passage coincides perfectly with the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1-4. These names appear in the same order in Luke’s genealogy at 3.31-33. Could it be that by mentioning Er, Luke is making yet another parallel, though implicit, to that of the latter section of his genealogy up to David?

Supposing Kuhn is right to suggest the parallel of Luke 3.23-26 and 3.29-31, an extended diagram of Luke’s genealogy would look like so:

3.23-26b = Jesus to Mattathias
3.26c-28 = all unkown names/individuals, save Zerubbabel and Shealtiel
3.29-31c = Joshua to Mattathias, parallel to 3.23-26b
3.31d = Nathan
3.31e-38 = David to Adam to God, following OT parallels.

So, it appears that Nathan is the single name to separate the “knowns” of 3.31e-38 from the “arranged” of 3.23-31c. And equally intriguing is Luke’s inclusion of Er. If Rhesa is a name, and not an Aramaism of “prince”, then the Er is the sixth name following Zerubbabel and Shealtiel, whereas only five precede them. So, Er might operate as a separator just as Nathan – and this so especially in light of Er’s family line, corresponding with some of 3.31e-38.

If Er is another separator, then the names Zerubbabel and Shealtiel comprise the midpoint of “the unknowns” of 3.26c-28. What is so significant about Zerubbabel and Shealtiel for Luke to have isolated them and given them attention in this way?

I am certain that Shealtiel is present simply to identify Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel is an important character in Israel’s history. Ezra tells of his fame:

“Now these were the people of the province who came up out of captivity of those exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried captive to Babylonia: they returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his own town. They came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua,…. The people gathered as one man to Jerusalem. Then arose Jeshua the son of Jozadak, with his fellow priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel with his kinsmen, and they built an altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings upon it, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God…. Zerubbabel…and Jeshua…made a beginning, together with the…priests and the Levites and all who had come to Jerusalem from the captivity. They appointed the Levites…to have oversight of the work of the house of the Lord…. And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests in their vestments came forward with trumpets…and they sang responsively, praising and giving thanks to the LORD…. Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to the LORD,…they approached Zerubbabel…and said, ‘Let us build with you...’. But Zerubbabel, Jeshua…said to them, ‘You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the LORD…’. Now the prophets Haggai and Zechariah…prophesied to the Jews who were in Judah and Jerusalem…. Then Zerubbabel…and Jeshua…arose and began to rebuild the house of God which is in Jerusalem; and with them were the prophets of God helping them.” (Ez2.1-2; 3.1-2, 8-11; 4.1-3; 5.1-2)

And Zechariah says of Zerubbabel:

“Then he said to me, ‘This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts. What are you, O mountain? Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain; and he shall bring forward the top stone amid shouts of “Grace, grace to it!”’ Moreover the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. For whoever has despised the day of small things shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel.” (Zech4.6-10)

Zerubbabel accompanied Jeshua and his priests in building the house of God. Considering Luke’s name game in his genealogy, does Jeshua = Jesus? By singling out Zerubbabel, is Luke saying that Zerubbabel is accompanying Jesus (and his priests?) in establishing God’s kingdom amid pagan societies? And who are the “unknowns”, as I have termed them? Can they be identified at all, via other sources? Lastly, is there a chance that Melchi is shorthand for Melchizedek?

=====

I’m not sure that this is significant, but isn’t Joanan (Lk3.27) the male form of Johanna, the name of Theophilus’ granddaughter, who witnessed the resurrection (Luke 24.8-11)? I ask this because, in the entire genealogy, Luke has employed only one huios (“son”, 3.23), and before every name employed the genitive article tou to link them together, creatively creating the phrase “son of”. Therefore, he could not have included any female names without breaking his rhythmic pattern. If the inclusion and singling-out of Zerubbabel is meant to suggest that Jesus and his prophets are breaking in (Ez5.2), and that Zerubbabel must accompany those who “complete” the “house of God” (Zech4.9), might these names refer to those actively involved? If so, Johanna, an eyewitness to Jesus' resurrection (Lk24.8-11), would surely be named in a list of witnesses and “prophets” given to her grandfather, Theophilus.

copyrighted 2005

Luke's Genealogy

2005-04-08T09:10:00.000-07:00

I have been studying Luke’s genealogy a bit, unable yet to make much sense of it. (Admittedly, I came into the study with an agenda.) In comparison to Matthew’s genealogy and various others of the Old Testament, Luke’s is very different. I have noted some details of interest, given below. (J. A. Fitzmyer’s commentary on Luke [AB] was most helpful.)

None of the first twenty entries, from Jesus to Rhesa, find any OT support. Zerubbabel is the first in Luke's series (and the last in Matthew's) to share OT testimony (1Chron3.19). Luke's list has 78 entries, spanning 77 generations (Matthew's only having 42 names, stopping at Abraham; Luke's list from Jesus to Abraham is made up of 57 names). Luke makes the connection from David to Nathan, not Solomon (as in Matthew). Surely Luke has in mind David’s son, and not the prophet. Or does he? Is this shift significant? There are five mentions of "Matthat" or "Mattathias" in Luke (3.24, 25, 26, 31), one of which finds its way in Matthew (Mt1.14), and none of which are recorded in the OT. Luke mentions twice a "Levi" (3.24, 29), neither of which are in Matthew, and only the latter seeming to point to the patriarchal figure. And about that patriarchal figure, there are four patriarchal names in 3.29-30: Joseph, Judah, Simeon, and Levi. Luke mentions one "Eliezer", which has not OT referent, though Matthew names one "Eleazar" (Mt1.14).

Does any of this indicate that Luke has tampered with his genealogy? Fitzmyer says that, if we adopt the 25-30-year generational span, Luke's is more likely to be accurate in number over Matthew’s (Fitzmyer, 495). And, since Matthew has deliberately arranged his genealogy into three sets of fourteen generations (cf. Mt1.17), his seems most artificial. But, the sequence seems way out in Luke. What is Luke doing? The names I've noted above are those of former high priests, no doubt recognized by Theophilus (the high priest of 37-41AD). I. H. Marshall notes that in the times of the patriarchs, the names "Levi", etc., were only used in Israel after the exile, and thus Luke is designating names anachronistically (Marshall, Commentary on Luke [NIGTC], 160). Is Luke using a tradition, or improvising?

Additionally (and more to the point of my original agenda), I read in Marshall’s commentary that "H. Sahlin, 89, also suggests that the number of priestly names in the genealogy may indicate a desire to show that Jesus was a priestly Messiah" (Marshall, 161, citing Sahlin’s Der Messias und das Gottesvolk). Marshall himself does not believe that Luke is portraying Jesus as a priestly Messiah. And Sahlin’s comment does not necessitate such a conclusion. However, can Sahlin’s suggestion be validated? If so, what are the implications?

copyrighted 2005

"Two Men": Witnesses of Jesus' Departure

2005-04-05T14:02:00.000-07:00

In telling his Jesus story, Luke has often coupled his characters: the sending of the twelve out in pairs (9.1ff.); Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration (9.28ff.); the sending of the seventy out in pairs (10.1ff); the two men at the tomb (24.4ff.); the two on the road to Emmaus (24.13ff.). (I realize that some of these pairings appear in the other Gospels as well. I am working from the assumption that Luke was written first, an assumption I’ll not defend here, nor one on which the thrust of this entry rests.)

(Richard has written on the prospect that Luke uses the two-witness rule to verify his story. This may or may not be relevant to my suggestion here, but I thought it worth mentioning in the event that I may have overlooked such a connection.)

Many have supposed that the two men (andres duo) of Luke 24.4 and of Acts 10.1 were angels, particularly because of the comment in Luke 24.23 (where angelon is used by the two on the road in recalling the women’s tale, or “vision” as they call it). What can we know about these “two men”? And does it really matter?

I will begin by laying out what we “know” based on Luke’s data. From there, I will attempt to answer the above questions.

We know that the “two men” of Luke 24.4 and Acts 1.10 were dressed in “dazzling white” (estheti astraptouse) and “white robes” (asthesesi leukais), respectively. I suppose this is yet another reason why so many assume these “men” to be angels.

We know that Luke has mentioned in his Gospel “two men” (andres duo) who “appeared in glory” – namely, Moses and Elijah (9.30).

We know that Jesus referred to his own resurrection state in terms of “entering into glory” (24.26; cf. 9.32).

We know that at the Transfiguration Jesus’ appearance was altered, “and his raiment became dazzling white” (leukos exastrapton; 9.29 – compare with Lk24.4 and Ac1.10, of the “two men”).

We know that Moses and Elijah “spoke of [Jesus’] departure [exodon], which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem” (9.31). (I do not think it necessary to recall the details of Moses’ and Elijah’s supposed departures or whereabouts. The connection should be fairly obvious.)

We know that the resurrection account of Luke 24.1ff. and the ascension accounts of Luke 24.50-52 and Acts 1.1ff. all take place in or around Jerusalem.

In light of these “known” things according to Luke’s writings, I submit that the “two men” of Luke 24.4 and Acts 1.10 are not angels, but Moses and Elijah. Jesus had demonstrated (9.29) that the “dazzling” appearance need not be relegated to angels only. The actual term used by Luke, andres, does not forcefully suggests “angels” are meant. For that, he has employed the normative “angelon” in Luke 24.23; but as I noted above, that reference is (at least) a second hand telling, one which calls the episode a “vision” as well. (I am honestly not sure what to make of this detail yet. I am however sure that it does not eradicate everything I am suggesting. It might also be said, and should be remembered, that a single angel, Gabriel, appears before Mary in Luke 1.26. Why are there not two here? It is because the angel is not having to witness anything, but rather is dispensing news. And again, here Luke calls Gabriel and “angel” [angelos].)

It might perhaps be mentioned that Luke’s Gospel places the ascension in Bethany, not Jerusalem; and that Acts 1 places it at the Mount of Olives “which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away [from Jerusalem]” (Ac1.12), and not in Jerusalem as 9.31 states. And so some may object to my linking Moses and Elijah with the two men present at the tomb and Jesus' "Jerusalem departure". But the remark made in Luke 9.31 is a reference point for Luke, a place at which his Jesus takes a new turn in his journey. Immediately after the Transfiguration, we find that Jesus "set his face to go to Jerusalem" (9.51). And from this point on Jesus is moving in that direction. So I don't think the reference to Jerusalem in 9.31 should be understood as Jerusalem proper, but as a general geographic reference from which Jesus' finishing work will "be fulfilled/accomplished" in contradistinction to Galilee, where he had ministered up to that point (cf. 4.31; 5.1; 7.1, 11; 8.26).

Last to note, the “two men” appear at the beginning and the end of the forty day period, the period which marks the time of Jesus “departure” as spoken about by Moses, Elijah and Jesus earlier (cf. Lk9.32). It therefore seems quite sensible for Luke to have meant by “two men” in “dazzling white robes” and associated with the state of “glory” the very same individuals he explicitly named beforehand – Moses and Elijah.

=====

In light of Richard’s contemplated text of a few days ago, I had once written an essay on the similarities between Luke’s Transfiguration account and Exodus 29-40. I will be searching for it.

copyrighted 2005

Johanna

2005-04-05T10:09:00.000-07:00

In his recent post on Johanna (see Lk8.3; 24.10), Richard diagrammed a chiasmus of Luke 24.8-11. While his point is clear, I would like to make a slight modification to the chiasmus to demonstrate Luke's verbal deliberacy.

A They remembered his words (rhematon).

B Having returned from the tomb, they reported all these things (tauta panta)

C to the Eleven

D and to all the rest/others (loipois).

E Now there were Mary Magdalene

F and Johanna

E' and Mary the mother of James

D' and the others (loipai) with them.

C' They were telling the Apostles

B these things (tauta).

A' But these words (rhemata tauta) seeemed nonsense to them, and they did not believe them.

Some have argued that the variant of 24.12, if retained, would correspond to 24.9, both of which speak of the tomb. But, I find it hard pressed, since the order of things would be skewed.

copyrighted 2005

Luke, Jesus and Samuel

2005-04-03T18:40:00.000-07:00

I previously wrote about the relationship between Luke 2.40-52 and 1 Samuel 2.26-3.19. (See my earlier post on this.) Richard has asked an important question about that relationship: "Why then, if we accept Lee Dahn’s original and insightful observation, is Luke being subtle in comparing Jesus to Samuel, one of the greatest prophets, who resided in the temple at Shiloh from the age of two and according to 1 Samuel 2:35 is the fulfillment of God’s promise to “raise up for myself a faithful high priest”?"

I am not sure how to take the question - as directed to me personally calling for further clarification, or as a general query. I will nonetheless try making a few clarifications and modifications to my original comments. (I thought for a moment to go back and make these modifications in the original post, but then quickly realized how irresponsible and compromising that would be. I am embarrassed for some of the errors.)

First, I may have been hasty in asserting that "from 3.1-18, we get the idea that Samuel fits the requirements God had established for the priests, thus seemingly fulfilling the promise to 'raise up for myself a faithful high priest' (2.35)." I was putting some small details (e.g., the linen ephod of 2.18-19, 28) together which may or may not bear any weight in linking Samuel to the fulfillment of 2.35. Perhaps to say that Samuel particularly is God's "faithful priest" is to read too much into Luke's Jesus story. (Please note that I incorrectly wrote "faithful high priest" in my previous post. Apologies for the lack of faithfulness to the text - an obvious indicator that I was too strongly attempting to import some implication into Luke's story.) Perhaps it is not. I am just not sure.

Second, and certainly more in line with Richard's thesis, I believe that Luke is comparing Jesus to Samuel, however subtle, because the story of Eli's sons (1Sam2.12-17, 27-36) represents perhaps the best-known tale of the corruption of the Israel's priesthood. Richard has brought to light other instances in Luke's Gospel where the priesthood is subtly exposed as corrupt (e.g., the story of the rich man and Lazarus). Those subtle movements by Luke would have been, I presume, fairly easy for Theophilus to recognize, being high priest himself and familiar with his own familiy's handling of the office. And the fact that the stories of both Eli's sons and young Samuel's calling (at the age of twelve? [so Josephus]) are found between the "growth" comments of 1 Samuel 2.26 and 3.19 seems, in my mind, to indicate that Luke is trying to tie what lies between his own "growth" comments about the twelve-year-old Jesus (Lk2.40, 52) with the two stories about Eli's sons and Samuel.

I will admit that the evidence in Luke's Gospel suggesting that Jesus is the new eschatological high priest is scarce and cryptic at best. But that does not mean it is not present.

May I ask a few counter-questions? If Luke is consistently showing the corruption of the priesthood and not attmepting to say that Jesus is the new eschatological high priest, what is his resolution to the problem of the priesthood? Is there one? What are the reasons for exposing the priesthood's corruption? Is the motivation merely to show that Jesus was condemned unjustly, by an unjust establishment, by Romans influenced by corrupt priests? (I find this hard to believe, considering that everything Jesus was condemned for he is recorded to have claimed himself, explicitly and implicitly.) If the motivation is not merely political, then why is the corruption of the priesthood important for Luke's Jesus story?

Lastly, could it be that Luke 19.47-48 and texts like it are meant by Luke to fulfill 1 Samuel 2.36, where the people implore the faithful priest? (I notice that 1 Kings 2.27 claims to fulfill the promise as well.)

copyrighted 2005

Blogging: Agreement and Debate

2005-03-31T13:51:00.000-08:00

So, Richard and I disagree on whether or not Luke presents Jesus, however subtly, as the new eschatological high priest. I could very well be wrong in claiming so, and will be glad to admit it should the need arise. However, we do not disagree on who Theophilus is. Nor do we disagree on why Luke wrote to him. Nor on when Luke wrote.

Richard and I have been dialoguing for some time now. He has convinced me of his views on Luke-Acts. I have tried to further his efforts in some ways. This blog is such an attempt.

I look forward to Richard's thoughts on "the nature of blogging". But I have no doubt that dialogue refines thought.

Thank you, Richard, for the public acknowledgement of this blog. I hope to add profitable conversation.

copyrighted 2005

Luke 24.50-51: Jesus as High Priest

2005-03-30T11:34:00.000-08:00

What is the significance of Jesus' raising of his hands and pronouncing a blessing (doubly stated) before ascending into heaven in Luke 24.50-51? It seems very similar to the priestly ritual performed by Aaron and recorded in Leviticus 9.22: "And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people and blessed them, and came down from offering of the sin offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings."

Sirach 50.20-21 tells a similar story of the high priest Simon (ca. 220-195 BC). He was praised for restoring the temple, and remembered for his appearance after having returned from the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (50.1-19). Additionally, the people are said to have bowed in worship.

In Luke 24.52, there is a variant reading: "And they worshipped [Jesus]." Perhaps this is an addition by a scribe who recognized Luke's effort to portray Jesus as a high priest, mirroring that of Simon in Sirach 50.

=====

Some additional questions and thoughts on Luke 24.50-51:

Is Luke's account of Jesus' departure modelled after those of Moses (Deut33) and Abraham (Gen49)?

Does Luke have in mind the blessings of Methuselah and Enoch as recorded in 2 Enoch 56.1; 57.2; 64.4?

If Luke ought to be read chiastically, it seems that 1.8ff. corresponds to 24.50-53, which would implicitly link Jesus with the office of high priest. The grammatical construction of the opening statements of the two passages seems to suggest such a link.

Upon their dep[artures, Moses left his spirit with Joshua (Deut34.9), and Elijah his with Elisha (2Kgs2.9). Should we understand Jesus to be leaving his spirit with his followers in the same way? If so, this would help strengthen already-established emphasis in Luke on Moses and Elijah, and that at the culmination of Luke's Gospel.

If I remember correctly, Crispin Fletcher-Louis has argued that the high priest was worshipped, either as God or as the representative of God. Does Sirach 50.20-21 text support that idea?

copyrighted 2005