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.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Priests and Synagogues
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.
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.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Johanna and Spirit-infirmities
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
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"
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
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
Monday, June 11, 2007
Emmaus?
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
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
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Sceva: Initial Thoughts
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
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
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Luke 3.30 and Mark 6.3 (Matthew 13.55)?
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
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
Friday, May 25, 2007
Priests and Tax Collectors
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
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?
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
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
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
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
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Hypocrisy in Luke 12 and 2 Maccabees 6
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
"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?)
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
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
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
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
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Luke 12.42-48 and Joseph?
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
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
Monday, May 21, 2007
Luke and Pilate
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
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
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Luke 12.35-48: Details
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
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
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Unintentional Cognitive Association?
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
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
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
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
Monday, May 14, 2007
Thoughts on Jesus' Parables in Luke
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
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
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Theophilus and the Rich Young Ruler
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)