Sunday, November 1, 2009

Week 7 - Chapter 7 - The Gospel According to Luke

Here are some almost random thoughts –

1) Apostolicity – It appears from all the evidence that has been presented by de Silva that none of the (Synoptic) Gospels is directly the result of the efforts of an Apostle. (I can’t write about John at this point.) I think it is fair to say that even if the words of the Apostles – say, Peter – were recorded after the fact as faithfully as human memory would allow, there might still be errors and omissions in human recollection. That is, no doubt, the reason that Biblical scholars seek material from multiple independent sources. Even the Apostles, I suppose, may have had an agenda or views or interpretations which would have differed from one another. I believe it is possible that all could have been inspired by the Holy Spirit as well as the experience of the risen Jesus, and still end up putting the Spirit into practice in different ways.

2) Textual history – de Silva refers in the Exegetical Skills section of Luke on “Textual Criticism” to “the vicissitudes of textual history.” (at pg. 302) This suggests to me that the survival of a particular text may be more a matter of Man’s free will and fallibility, combined with the vagaries of chance. Given that, I believe it is fair to say that we are fortunate to have as much we do that I believe to have been authentic teachings and sayings of Jesus and of his passion and resurrection.

3) Scribal errors – de Silva writes, “If you were to set the approximately 5,300 surviving New Testament manuscripts side by side, you would not find any two (of any sizeable length) to have exactly the same text.” (pg. 300, citing Bart Ehrman, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995, pp. 129, 131. De Silva explains that some scribal errors are inadvertent, the result of misapprehension when taking a text down from dictation, perhaps, or the result of the eye skipping from one phrase or word to another similar phrase or word elsewhere on the page, thus omitting a portion, or perhaps accidentally duplicating a word or phrase. Other errors were intentional – or a combination of intent and inadvertence – as for instance when a scribal explanatory gloss became eventually incorporated into the text, or when a scribe sought to “improve,” explain or harmonize a text with another, more accepted version elsewhere in the Old or New Testament. An example of this is the tendency in various versions to make the Lucan version of the Lord’s Prayer (short and simple) more nearly resemble the more widely accepted version in Matthew.

4) “Majority Text” – at pg. 302 de Silva discusses the fact that there may have been three manuscripts bearing two different readings in ancient times, one of which, perhaps the one with the most “scribal variations,” may have been copied 500 times, while no copies of the first two were made. Thus later texts and translations may have been based on the “most widely copied” version – though this version may not have been the most correct, the closes to the original. He states that this is the phenomenon behind the creation of the King James Version and by many conservative students. It seems to me that the arguments agains the “Marjority Text” (that the one with the fewest copies may be the best) is counter-intuitive and appears to contradict the proposition stated lower-down on the same page, as well as earlier in the text, that the more widely-disseminated texts are more likely to be authentic.

I recall one student in an early lecture commenting that one shouldn’t “cherry-pick” the Gospels. But, given the opinions of those much more learned than I, who are also Christians, I believe that one does have to exercise some critical judgment as well as devotion and belief to one’s reading of the Bible. I would point out, for example, Jesus’ core messages – telling us how we should relate to God and to one another and of the coming of the Kingdom of God. I believe all texts in the New Testament should be read at least partly in how they accord with Jesus’ teachings. For example, Jesus taught that we should love our enemies, because anyone can favour those who love him. But God provides rain on the good and the evil alike. (I am paraphrasing, of course.) How can this be reconciled with the incident in Acts 5:1-10 of Peter’s killing (or God’s killing?) a man and wife (Ananias and Sapphira) who attempt to withhold part of their wealth from the Church. Every time I read this incident I am shocked. I cannot imagine God or Jesus sanctioning such an action. Ergo, I am in effect forced to cherry-pick – or rather, read critically, as well as reading to learn and to confirm my beliefs.




3 comments:

  1. I am aware that my comments as posted don't deal specifically with Luke, but they are some things I have been mulling over for a while that are considered in this chapter. Here, fyi, is the first part of what I had written, which I chopped for reasons of length -

    Luke is the third of the Synoptic Gospels, though not, according to de Silva, disseminated quite so widely or accepted quite so universally in ancient times as Matthew’s Gospel had been. De Silva states that the attribution to Luke occurred quite early and has never been seriously challenged, although there is no express claim of authorship in the text. It is generally accepted that Luke used the Gospel of Mark and the Q materials, as did Matthew, and some material, referred to as “L,” which is unique to Luke’s Gospel.

    The author is believed to have been a traveling companion of Paul’s, due in part to certain passages in Acts in which the events are recorded in the first person plural “we.” It is noted in my NIV Study Bible, in the preface to Luke, that during part of this period, Paul was imprisoned and composed the letter to the Colossians. And in that letter, he lists Luke as being one of his companions. So, circumstantial evidence weighs in favour of Luke being the author. Another factor is that Luke is believed to have been a physician, and the Gospel, according to de Silva is the most eruditely-written of all the Gospels. He states that he corrects the grammar of the material he borrows from Mark, and he often uses sentences with subordinate clauses, rather than just simple or compound sentences. De Silva states that there is little evidence of specialized medical terminology, but that doesn’t rule out that the author was a physician, as Luke was supposed to have been.

    Date of composition is not certain, but obviously must have been composed after Mark’s Gospel. Some authorities believe it was written prior to the destruction of the Temple, others afterward. De Silva supports the argument that Luke was composed after 70 A.D.; he surmises that the reason the events after 60 A.D. were not recorded was that they were not relevant to Luke’s theme or purpose. He does state that the omission from Jesus’ prophetic warning of the threat to Jerusalem “pray that your flight may not be in winter” may have been intentional, due to the fact that the sack of the Temple occurred during the summer of 70 A.D.

    Unlike Matthew, de Silva states that Luke was directed primarily at Gentile Christians, to give them reassurance that by following Jesus they were really helping to fulfill God’s plan. Furthermore, that although the Christians were definitely distinct from traditional Judaism, that their sect actually represented the correct way to follow Torah – the values of love, mercy and compassion being held to be more important that following the traditional dietary rules, Sabbath observances, and circumcision (I presume). Luke emphasizes the importance of the Spirit of God in effecting the progressive stages of His plan. De Silva notes that Luke’s problem is “theodicy,” explaining how it was possible that God’s plan was being fulfilled, despite the fact that Jerusalem had been laid waste and most Jews did not espouse belief in Jesus as Messiah. De Silva also states that, despite the distinctness of the Christian sect, Luke attempts to place it under the aegis of Judaism, partly to encourage tolerance for the new faith, as the Jews had been tolerated within the Empire.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My understanding is that Luke was not a physician as those of today. However, Luke also had a few profession of wish helping in heling people, writting history, and being a lawyer were among them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi, Brian!

    De Silva refers to Luke having been a physician on pgs. 298-299 of our text, and he cites a passage from Paul's letter to the Colossians (at Col 4:14). Paul writes (in my NIV Study Bible), "Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings." It seems from what de Silva writes that the question is not so much whether Luke was a physician of the day (not as specialized as one today, which sounds like what you are referring to), but whether there is convincing evidence that he is the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts. De Silva indicates that, while some scholars point to the use of medical terminology in the Gospel and Acts as evidence of Luke’s authorship, there aren’t enough specialized medical terms to prove that what the profession of the author was, only that he was a well-educated Greco-Roman. (The discussion puts me in mind of the old joke, “Shakespeare wasn’t written by Shakespeare but by somebody else of the same name!” :-))

    ReplyDelete