DOCSLIB.ORG

Proquest Dissertations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proquest Dissertations A SOURCE CRITICAL REASSESSMENT OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE: WAS CANONICAL MARK REALLY LUKE'S SOURCE? A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Wycliffe College and the Biblical Department of the Toronto School of Theology in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's College By Kari Pekka Tolppanen Toronto 2009 © Kari P. Tolppanen Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-53123-5 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-53123-5 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission. In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these. While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis. 1*1 Canada A Source Critical Reassessment of the Gospel of Luke: Was Canonical Mark Really Luke's Source? Ph.D., 2009 Kari Pekka Tolppanen Biblical Department University of St. Michael's College ABSTRACT The author argues that Luke did not derive his triple tradition material from canonical Mark. He bases his thesis on three major observations: First, Luke clearly emphasizes certain theological themes in his double work, but interestingly these themes are sometimes missing in Luke while present in Markan parallel pericopes. The author discusses the following themes in detail: prayer, the Holy Spirit, power/mighty works, repentance, ethnos, salvation, angels, Jesus as the King, and the kingdom of God. Second, the Lukan and Markan non-Passion sections resemble each other much more closely at both macro and micro levels than the Lukan and Markan Passion-Resurrection sections do. There is no comprehensive theological or grammatical explanation for this change of tone. The author attempts to demonstrate the unlikelihood, by comparing the Lukan Passion- Resurrection section with his non-Passion section, that Luke drew these sections from an originally unified source, and, by detailed analysis of the Passion-Resurrection section, that Luke drew it from canonical Mark. Third, great variation in verbatim agreement levels between the Lukan and Markan parallel passages run against the human tendency towards consistency in behavior and editorial practice. This fact may suggest that Luke did not derive his triple tradition material from canonical Mark, copy-editing it inconsistently. The author's study of some Greco-Roman and Jewish authors ii Ill shows that, in general, they were very consistent copyist-editors, either paraphrasing their source texts almost entirely or copying them almost word for word. In a few ancient works, in which variation in verbatim agreement most resemble Luke, another theory rather than the direct literary dependency one may better explain the relationship between two works. In the conclusion, the author suggest that Luke derived his triple tradition material not from canonical Mark but from either a single Non-Canonical Markan Source/Tradition (NCMS/T) or two NCMS/Ts, which Luke used consistently. Canonical Mark and a NCMS/T(s) had the same origin but different development histories, developing in partly different directions probably due to the interaction of orality and literacy. Luke's reliance on aNCMS/T(s) rather than on canonical Mark may be the reason for the differences mentioned above. IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS "Do not try to do it all at once. Take it one bite at a time." This advice was given by Larry J. Perkins, my professor at the ACTS Seminaries of Trinity Western University, when I told him of my intentions and fears about doing a Ph.D. in Theology. These words of wisdom have carried me along to this day. In addition to God, who has called me into his kingdom, and Dr. Perkins for his wise advice, I also owe a great debt to the following persons: First, it has been my great privilege to have Professor John S. Kloppenborg (University of Toronto) as my dissertation supervisor. The better I have come to know him, the more I have admired the breadth of his knowledge and wisdom He has carefully read every page of my dissertation and helped me to improve my thesis by his constructive criticism. Second, I am also grateful to the member of my examination committee, Professors Terence L. Donaldson (Wycliffe College), L. Ann Jervis (Wycliffe College), John S. Kloppenborg (University of Toronto), Scott Lewis (Regis College), and Mark Goodacre (external; Duke University). Third, I owe a very special word of thanks to Ainsley Sommer, proofreader of my dissertation, who has patiently corrected my English sentences free of charge. Finally, I express my deepest gratitude to my wife Arja for her sacrificial love and support. Without her constant encouragement I would have never been able to finish this project. Thanks also to our daughter, Susanna, and son, Sakari, my parents Hilkka and Seppo, and my friends Ben, Hannu, Jason, Jouni, and Leo who have always stood my side and encouraged me to continue when I have been tempted to give up. It is to them that this work is dedicated. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Acknowledgments iv Abbreviations ix 1 Introduction: 1 The Synoptic Problem 1 Suggested Solutions to the Synoptic Problem and Critique of Them 3 Proposal 10 2 Lukan Thematic Omissions: 15 Introduction 15 Luke's Path to Becoming a Theologian 15 Luke's Thematic Emphases 17 The Overall Theme of Luke-Acts: The Plan of God 17 Various Emphatic Aspects of the Overall Theme 19 Inconsistencies in Luke's Use of Thematic Material Present in Mark 22 Prayer 23 Introduction 23 Analyses of the Pericopes 29 Aland §39 (Luke 4:42-43; Mark 1:35-38) 29 Aland §147 (Mark 6:45-52) and 'the Great Omission' 34 Aland §§347-348 (Luke 23:44-48, 49; Mark 15:33-39, 40-41) 44 Aland §163 (Luke 9:37-43a; Mark 9:14-29) 49 Aland §275 (Mark 11:20-26) 52 Aland §290 (Luke 21:20-24; Mark 13:14-20) 55 The Holy Spirit 61 Introduction 61 Analyses of the Pericopes 62 Aland §283 (Luke 20:41-44; Mark 12:35-37a) 62 Aland §289 (Luke 21:12-19; Mark 13:9-13) 63 Power /Mighty Works 66 Introduction 66 Analyses of the Pericopes 68 Aland §143 (Luke 9:7-9; Mark 6:14-16) 68 Aland §167 (Luke 9:49-50; Mark 9:38-41) 70 Aland §281 (Luke 20:27-40; Mark 12:18-27) 71 Repentance 73 Introduction 73 Analyses of the Pericopes 74 Aland §§30, 32 (Luke 4:14-15; Mark 1:14-15) 74 Aland §142 (Luke 9:1-6; Mark 6:6b-13) 76 Ethnos 81 Introduction 81 VI Analyses of the Pericopes 82 Aland §273 (Luke 19:45-46; Mark 11:15-17) 82 Aland §289 (Luke 21:12-19; Mark 13:9-13) 85 Salvation 88 Introduction 88 Analyses of the Pericopes 89 Aland §289 (Luke 21:12-19; Mark 13:9-13) 89 Angels 90 Introduction 90 Analyses of the Pericopes 91 Aland §20 (Luke 4:1-13; Mark 1:12-13) 91 Aland §292 (Luke 21:25-28; Mark 13:24-27) 94 Aland §293 (Luke 21:29-33; Mark 13:28-32) 96 Jesus as the King 98 Introduction 98 Analyses of the Pericopes 99 Aland §339 (Luke 23:17-23; Mark 15:6-14) 99 Aland §342 (Mark 15:16-20a) 103 Aland §345 (Luke 23:35-38; Mark 15:27-32a) 105 The Kingdom of God ./.. 107 Introduction ./ 107 Analyses of the Pericopes 109 Aland§32(Luke4:14b-15;Markl:14b-15) 109 Aland §126 (Mark 4:26-29) 112 Aland §168 (Mark 9:42-50)/§229 (Luke 17:l-3a) 113 Aland §182 (Luke 10:25-28) / Aland §282 (Mark 12:28-34) 117 Conclusion 121 3 Dissimilarities between the Lukan and Markan Passion-Resurrection Narratives: 123 Introduction 123 Previous Approaches to the Problem 130 Luke Used a Single Written Source in the Passion-Resurrection Narrative 131 The Source Was Mark 131 The Source Was Non-Markan 132 Luke Combined Sources in the Passion-Resurrection Narrative 134 The Combination of Mark and Proto-Luke 134 The Combination of Mark and a Non-Markan Source(s) or Tradition(s) 142 Exegetical Analyses 144 Aland §305 (Luke 22:1-2; Mark 14:1-2) 144 Aland §306 (Luke 7:36-50; Mark 14:3-9) 147 Aland §307 (Luke 22:3-6; Mark 14:10-11) 152 Aland§308 (Luke 22:7-14; Mark 14:12-17) 156 Aland §311 (Luke 22:15-20; Mark 14:22-25) 159 Aland §312 (Luke 22:21-23; Mark 14:18-21) 163 Aland§313 (Luke 22:24-30; Mark 10:41-45) 167 vu Aland
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Synoptic Problem
    THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 1. The Literary Interrelationship of the Synoptic Gospels 1.1. That Matthew, Mark and Luke are similar to one another in content, the order of pericopes and in expression (style and vocabulary) is obvious to even the casual observer. (A pericope is technical term for a unit of gospel tradition.) This raises the question of why they are similar to one another in these respects. This is known as the synoptic problem. 1.1.2. In the late nineteenth century, B.F. Westcott proposed that the independent use of oral tra- dition by the three synoptic writers would account for any similarity ( An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels ). But the similarity seems too great not to postulate some sort of literary depend- ence among the synoptic gospels. This is especially true of the similarity in the order of the peric- opes and, in particular, the order of the triple tradition. It seems unlikely that the individual units of oral tradition would have been passed on in a set order, since the order of pericopes in the syn- optic gospels is generally non-chronological. 1.1.3. That the synoptic gospels are literarily related in some way becomes even more obvious when one compares the synoptic gospels to the Gospel of John. It is clear from a comparison of one of the few overlaps in content between them (outside of the Passion and Resurrection narra- tives) that the synoptic gospels are literarily related to one another. A comparison of the account of the Feeding of the 5,000 from any one of the synoptic gospels with that of the Gospel of John yields no verbatim agreement beyond what one would expect of accounts of the same event.
    [Show full text]
  • The Argument from Miracles: a Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
    The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth Introduction It is a curiosity of the history of ideas that the argument from miracles is today better known as the object of a famous attack than as a piece of reasoning in its own right. It was not always so. From Paul’s defense before Agrippa to the polemics of the orthodox against the deists at the heart of the Enlightenment, the argument from miracles was central to the discussion of the reasonableness of Christian belief, often supplemented by other considerations but rarely omitted by any responsible writer. But in the contemporary literature on the philosophy of religion it is not at all uncommon to find entire works that mention the positive argument from miracles only in passing or ignore it altogether. Part of the explanation for this dramatic change in emphasis is a shift that has taken place in the conception of philosophy and, in consequence, in the conception of the project of natural theology. What makes an argument distinctively philosophical under the new rubric is that it is substantially a priori, relying at most on facts that are common knowledge. This is not to say that such arguments must be crude. The level of technical sophistication required to work through some contemporary versions of the cosmological and teleological arguments is daunting. But their factual premises are not numerous and are often commonplaces that an educated nonspecialist can readily grasp – that something exists, that the universe had a beginning in time, that life as we know it could flourish only in an environment very much like our own, that some things that are not human artifacts have an appearance of having been designed.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the GOSPELS Mark Written Between 65-75 CE, in Rome Matthew
    1 THE GOSPELS Mark written between 65-75 CE, in Rome Matthew -- in 85, in Antioch Luke (and Acts) -- in 83-90, in Caesarea Maritime John -- ç 100 (?), in Ephesus SOURCES Q When Mark's passages are deleted from Matthew and Luke, some 200 verses remain that are strikingly similar. These are assumed to be from a common source, called Q (from the German quelle, "source.") M Material peculiar to Mark. L Material peculiar to Luke Then when the L source is compared to John, there seems to be more than coincidental affinity, indicating still another source known to both Luke and John. Paul's first letter -- 1 Thessalonians, c 48-49. Last letter -- Colossians, c 62. Paul probably died in 67 (according to Eusebius), so none of the Gospels had been written down at the time of his death. Wm Newell: In Matthew he walks before us as the King of Israel; in Mark as the Servant of Jehovah; in Luke as the Son of Man; in John as the Eternal Word, "the only begotten Son," Creator-God. GOSPEL -- from the Anglo-Saxon "godspell," meaning "good news." Bethesda – House of Grace Bethel – House of God Bethlehem – House of Bread Bethsaida – House of Fishing Eden – delight The parables. Giza Vermes: Only one of the 40 parables foreshadows the cross (wicked tenants in the vineyard (Matt 21:33 et al). That and all other allusions to the role of the Son of Man’s delayed return are later additions to the original central message of Jesus. OT quotes in the gospels: There are 41 quotes from the OT attributed to Jesus in all three synoptic gospels.
    [Show full text]
  • Nativity of Jesus
    Nativity of Jesus For other uses, see Nativity of Jesus (disambiguation). will of God, undoing the damage caused by the fall of The nativity of Jesus or birth of Jesus is described the first man, Adam. The artistic depiction of the na- tivity has been an important subject for Christian artists since the 4th century. Since the 13th century, the nativity scene has emphasized the humility of Jesus and promoted a more tender image of him, as a major turning point from the early “Lord and Master” image, which has had an effect on the basic approaches of Christian pastoral ministry.[2][3][4] The nativity plays a major role in the Christian liturgical year. Christian congregations of the Western tradition (including the Catholic Church, the Anglican Commu- nion, and many Protestants) begin observing the season of Advent four Sundays before Christmas, the traditional feast-day of his birth, which falls on December 25. Chris- tians of the Eastern Orthodox Church observe a similar season called the "Nativity Fast" during the forty days leading up to Christmas, which for them falls on January Adoration of the Shepherds by Gerard van Honthorst, 1622 7 as a result of Orthodox churches continuing to follow the Julian calendar, rather than the modern day Gregorian calendar.[5] 1 Date of birth See also: Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth and Chronology of Jesus § Historical_birth_date_of_Jesus The date of birth for Jesus of Nazareth is not stated in the gospels or in any secular text, but most scholars assume a date of birth between 6 BC and 4 BC.[6] The historical evidence is too ambiguous to allow a definitive dating,[7] but the date is estimated through two different approaches - one by analyzing references to known historical events mentioned in the Nativity accounts in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, and the second by working backwards from the estimation of the start of the ministry of Jesus.[8][9] Medieval miniature painting of the Nativity by the Master of 2 Place of birth Vyšší Brod, c.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcmaster Divinity College
    McMaster Divinity College PhD CHTH G105-C05 Cynthia Long Westfall, Ph.D. MA 6ZE6 Phone: 905.525.9140 x23605 Synoptic Gospels Email: [email protected] Fall 2013 (Term 1) Mondays 3:30-5:20 p.m. I. Course Description This course provides a brief overview of the critical issues in the study of the Synoptics and a seminar-led exploration of different facets of the Synoptic Gospels by the students. The student research and presentations may include topics such as the critique and application of various synoptic methodologies, aspects of the quest for the historic Jesus, any work in a given synoptic gospel, or other topics that are limited to the study of Matthew, Mark and Luke. II. Course Objectives Specific Objectives: Through required and optional reading, lectures, class discussion, seminar presentations and assignments the student will be able to reach the following objectives: A. Knowing 1. Understand current and historical issues surrounding the Synoptic Gospels including genre, oral tradition, Q, the relationship between the Synoptics, and the historical Jesus 2. Understand critical and other contemporary methodologies that are applied to the Synoptics and how they are applied 3. Acquire a generalist understanding of the Synoptics B. Doing 1. Research a Synoptic issue or topic and write an academic paper 2. Explore and apply a suitable methodology to the selected issue or topic in the paper 3. Give presentations that simulate paper presentations in conferences and the classroom 4. Respond to another student’s paper, in writing, in presentation, and in classroom discussion, simulating the function of a respondent/participant in a conference session, and practicing skills that are applicable to academic work, including writing reviews, critiques and editorial recommendations 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Evangelicals and the Synoptic Problem
    EVANGELICALS AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM by Michael Strickland A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Theology and Religion School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion University of Birmingham January 2011 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Dedication To Mary: Amor Fidelis. In Memoriam: Charles Irwin Strickland My father (1947-2006) Through many delays, occasioned by a variety of hindrances, the detail of which would be useless to the Reader, I have at length brought this part of my work to its conclusion; and now send it to the Public, not without a measure of anxiety; for though perfectly satisfied with the purity of my motives, and the simplicity of my intention, 1 am far from being pleased with the work itself. The wise and the learned will no doubt find many things defective, and perhaps some incorrect. Defects necessarily attach themselves to my plan: the perpetual endeavour to be as concise as possible, has, no doubt, in several cases produced obscurity. Whatever errors may be observed, must be attributed to my scantiness of knowledge, when compared with the learning and information necessary for the tolerable perfection of such a work.
    [Show full text]
  • The-Synoptic-Problem.Pdf
    THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: AN INTRODUCTION Clinton Baldwin, Ph.D. THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM ● The Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the Synoptic gospels, because they have basically the same plot and many stories in common. Therefore can be “seen together” ● Synoptic means “to see together” Not only do these gospels tell many of the same stories, they often do so using the same words. Such practice is solid indication that the gospels have similar source(s), as it is highly unlikely for three different persons writing at different times and places should use the same words and sequence of events unless they have some common literary dependence 3 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM ● But the Synoptics not only agree, they also disagree in wording and sequence of events ● Definition: The Synoptic problem has to do with the wide-ranging agreements and disagreements among the three Synoptic Gospels John’s Gospel is different from the Synoptic Gospels ● In John there is: – No genealogy – No manger or virgin birth – No boyhood – No baptism – No temptation – No Mount of Transfiguration John’s Gospel is different from the Synoptic Gospels ▪ In John there is: -No Gethsemane -No scribes -No lepers -No publicans -No demoniacs -No parables -Never cast out a demon Examples of the Synoptic Problem ● Mark 14:12;15:25- Jesus crucified day after the Passover ● John 19:14 - Jesus crucified day before the Passover ● Lk 2:39 - Jesus and family returned to Nazareth a month after going to Bethlehem ● Matt 2:19-22: They fled into Egypt Examples of the Synoptic Problem ● Matt
    [Show full text]
  • The Present State of the Synoptic Problem As Argument for a Synchronic Emphasis in Gospel Interpretation1
    Streeter Versus Farmer | 7 Streeter Versus Farmer: The Present State of the Synoptic Problem as Argument for a Synchronic Emphasis in Gospel Interpretation1 David R. Bauer Asbury Theological Seminary [email protected] Abstract The dominant method for Gospel interpretation over the past several decades has been redaction criticism, which depends upon the adoption of a certain understanding of synoptic relationships in order to identify sources that lie behind our Gospels. Yet an examination of the major proposals regarding the Synoptic problem reveals that none of these offers the level of reliability necessary for the reconstruction of sources that is the presupposition for redaction criticism. This consideration leads to the conclusion that approaches to Gospel interpretation that require no reliance upon specific source theories are called for. Keywords: Synoptic problem, redaction criticism, new redaction criticism, Gospel interpretation, synchronic reading, B. H. Streeter, William R. Farmer. 1 Some minor portions of this article may be also found in Chapter 3 of my book, The Gospel of the Son of God: An Introduction to Matthew (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, forthcoming). See that chapter for a more specific treatment of the implications of synoptic relationships for the interpretation of Matthew’s Gospel. 8 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 6/2:7-28 (Summer 2019) The Problem In the book I co-authored with Robert Traina, Inductive Bible Study: A Comprehensive Guide to the Practice of Hermeneutics,2 I insisted that the employment of critical methods (e.g., source criticism and redaction criticism) contribute to the reservoir of potential types of evidence that should be considered in the interpretation of passages.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistics & Q
    UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS Statistics & Q A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for honors in mathematics Bachelor of Science in Mathematics by Kirstyn Bayer April 15, 2008 Honors Committee: Professor Jim Bentley, Chairman Professor Rick Cornez Professor Steve Morics Professor Lillian Larsen Contents List of Figures Ill List of Tables iv 1 Introduction 1 2 Exploring Q 2 2.1 Composition and Genre 2 2.2 The Jesus People . 3 2.3 Matthew, Luke, & Q 4 3 The Layers of Q 5 4 The Synoptic Problem 7 4.1 Two Source Hypothesis 7 4.2 Augustinian Hypothesis 9 4.3 Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis . 9 5 Other Gospels 11 5.1 The Secret Gospel of Mark 11 5.2 The Gospel of Thomas . 12 6 The Research Process 14 6.1 Selecting a Topic 15 6.2 Assumptions 16 6.3 Finding Q . .. 16 7 The Federalist Papers 18 7.1 The Asymptotic Relationship Between the Poisson and the Negative Binomial 20 8 Statistical Tests 24 8.1 Likelihood Ratio Test 24 8.2 The Poisson Dispersion Test . 26 9 Results 28 9. 1 Future Work 28 Bibliography 31 A Appendix A 33 A.l Poisson Distribution with Mean /\ . 33 A.2 Negative Binomial with Parameters e = [r,p] 35 B Appendix B 38 List of Figures 4.1 Two Source Hypothesis . 8 4.2 Two alternative hypotheses to the Two Source hypothesis 9 iii List of Tables 7.1 Frequency distribution for war in the Federalist Papers. 20 9.1 The resulting p-values for the high-frequency words .
    [Show full text]
  • Was Jesus Ever a Disciple of John the Baptist? a Historical Study
    Was Jesus Ever a Disciple of John the Baptist? A Historical Study Max Aplin Ph.D. The University of Edinburgh 2011 Declaration I hereby declare that I have composed this thesis, the work is my own, and that this work has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification. ii Abstract This study asks if the historical Jesus was ever a disciple of John the Baptist, where by ‘disciple’ is meant someone who would have been in a close personal relationship to John as their leader and teacher, and who would have spent considerable time in his presence. The current majority view of scholars is that Jesus is likely to have been John’s disciple at some time before beginning his own ministry (and in the opinion of some, during the early part of his ministry too). However, this study argues that, although we cannot be sure, he is actually unlikely to have chosen to submit himself to John in this way. Reasons are provided for believing that, even early in his ministry, Jesus had a profound confidence in his (sometimes distinctive) beliefs across a range of religious issues, including those beliefs that had to do with his own extremely important place in God’s plan. It is argued too that if Jesus was ever John’s disciple, he would very probably have to have first become his disciple no more than a matter of months before beginning his own ministry. The shortness of the time in which his confidence in his religious beliefs could have developed means that, during the period in which any potential discipleship would have begun, it is probable that Jesus had at least a fairly deep assurance about what he believed in religious matters, including what he believed concerning his own crucial place in God’s plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Luke on the Dignity of Women: Perspective of Female Discipleship
    LUKE ON THE DIGNITY OF WOMEN: PERSPECTIVE OF FEMALE DISCIPLESHIP PhilipMary Ayika Emenike Abstract History has been accused of relegating the dignity of women to the background and feminism has continued to advocate for a kind of levelling of gender roles. Luke’s writings have been extantly used to buttress this quest of complete elimination of dichotomies between the male and female disciples of Jesus. The writings of Luke are examined. Luke is a forbearer of Jesus’ radicalism against the backdrop’s attitudes on women. Luke’s boundaries on this radicalism defines his insight into the dignity of women. There is no relegation of women to the background but their roles are a crown of their natural endowments. Keyword: Dignity of women, female discipleship, gender, feminism Introduction The social world in which Christianity was born had a long and complex history. The Jewish tradition was not the only great civilization in ancient times that trickled into Christianity. There were the earlier Persians’ and Assyrians’ traditions amongst others. These were all patriarchal societies where women were relegated to an inferior and subordinate position. Swindler (1976) said that the ancient Sumerians of the third Millennium BC allowed women to own and control property, to be educated and to be able to take more than one husband legally. But in the second millennium these rights were, as it were, usurped by Patriarchy. The surviving civilization imbued with a kind of gender equality that infiltrated into the Hellenic culture was the Egyptians. Tetlow (1980) wrote that in the last three millennia BC, marriages in Egypt were monogamous and by mutual consent.
    [Show full text]
  • AUGUSTINE on the INTERRELATIONS of the GOSPELS in a Contribution to the Recent Jerusalem Symposium on the Inter
    118 AUGUSTINE ON THE INTERRELATIONS OF THE GOSPELS In a contribution to the recent Jerusalem Symposium on The Inter- relations of the Gospels, Frans Neirynck makes mention of the "Augus- tinian hypothesis" concerning the literary relationships between the Gospels1. According to Neirynck, Augustine's view of these relation- ships was that Mark had access to Matthew, and Luke to Mark. Neirynck illustrates Augustine's Position with the following diagram: Mt -> Mk -* Lk It deserves to be pointed out at the outset that this presentation of Augustine's "hypothesis" is not entirely self-evident. In fact, Augustine has often been said to have held the view that each succeeding evangelist made use of the work of all his predecessors (in the case of Mark: of his only predecessor, Matthew)2. Since Augustine believed that the evangelists had written in the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, he would have held that Mark made use of Matthew, Luke of Mark and Matthew, and John of Mark, Matthew and Luke. In a paper read at the Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense of 1990, however, I have already argued that if Augustine had a "Benutzungs- hypothese" at all, it can only have had the following form3: Mt -> Mk -> Lk -» Jn The reason why Augustine should not be thought to have regarded each evangelist äs dependent on all his predecessors is that he, Augus- tine, wrote in De consensu evangelistarum I,ii,4: "each evangelist proves 1. F. NEIRYNCK, The Two-Source Hypothesis, in D.L. DUNGAN (ed.), The Interrelations of the Gospels (BETL, 95), Leuven, University Press - Peeters, 1990, pp.
    [Show full text]