Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:15 pm
So I think Luke is writing in reaction to Matthew and saw the advantage in including an infancy narrative, as Matthew had.
also Klinghardt assumes that canonical Luke knew Matthew so I am not opposed to the idea. But the my point is that if canonical Luke has introduced the circumcision, then he did so to reinforce the anti-marcionite function of the birth story found in Matthew.
Matthew with the midrash from Oseah 11:1 has pointed out explicitly that Jesus was the son of YHWH. Luke omitted a such exile in Egypt and in reward he gained the same effect (=that Jesus is son of YHWH) by introducing the circumcision.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 8:21 am
(1) No, the birth story may have been added to material taken from Mark in order to show that Jesus did not become the Son of God at his baptism (cf. Mark 1.11), but rather he was conceived and born the Son of God.
Just my thought, but it's very doubtful that Jesus became the Son of God only after his baptism in Mark's mind. Jesus is literally the Son of God in Mark, and that's why he does not have a father.
Mark's use of Psalms 2 (and 110), which were interpreted messianically by somes jews during the Second Temple period, seems to confirm Mark's agenda to present the Messiah as a literal son of God.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 8:21 am
(1) No, the birth story may have been added to material taken from Mark in order to show that Jesus did not become the Son of God at his baptism (cf. Mark 1.11), but rather he was conceived and born the Son of God.
Just my thought, but it's very doubtful that Jesus became the Son of God only after his baptism in Mark's mind. Jesus is literally the Son of God in Mark, and that's why he does not have a father.
Mark's use of Psalms 2 (and 110), which were interpreted messianically by somes jews during the Second Temple period, seems to confirm Mark's agenda to present the Messiah as a literal son of God.
I assume that Ken is saying that Luke interpreted Mark as an adoptionist text, in the same way I say that Matthew and Luke interpreted *Ev as a marcionite text.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:54 pm
I assume that Ken is saying that Luke interpreted Mark as an adoptionist text
Yes, you're probably right.
Sorry, I wrote a reply but it seems to have disappeared into cyberspace.
I'm not arguing that Mark intended to imply that Jesus became the Son of God by adoption. I'm arguing that Matthew and Luke put a good deal of effort into cleaning up potential theological problems Mark left.
But I found where I addressed this earlier (though not explicitly addressing adoptionism):
Mark's story of Jesus Baptism left unintended theological consequences that the later evangelists tried to clean up in their different ways. If John baptized Jesus, indeed if Jesus received the holy spirit through his baptism by John, wouldn't that make John greater than Jesus? And second, if John preached a baptism of repentance for remission of sins, and Jesus came to be John to be baptized, wouldn't that suggest that Jesus had sins he needed to repent for and have remitted?
Matthew seeks to address the problem directly by having John say it was rather he that needed to be baptized by Jesus, but baptizes Jesus because Jesus told him to and said it would 'fulfill all righteousness'. Clumsy, but it addresses the issue that it had to address.
Luke, on the other hand, makes it clear that even before their births it was revealed that John's purpose in life was to prepare the way for Jesus. Then he narrates that was John arrested in Luke 3.19-20, before Jesus is baptized in Luke 3.21, so we don't know who baptized Jesus in Luke.
Matthew and Luke's additions and alterations to Mark regarding John the Baptist are quite understandable as the evangelists' own creations, which were efforts to fix the theological problems Mark had inadvertently left.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:15 pm
I don't think any of the evangelists that were later gathered into the four gospel canon meant for his work to be read alongside other gospels which had equal authority.
I sometimes wonder about John vis-a-vis Mark, whether it was intended to be a John and Mark situation by the author of John. The idea that John attempted to supplement a gospel like Mark seems at least possible. The focus of the dialogue is very different, and there might even be something to the idea of the church fathers that John intended to fill in the blanks prior to the arrest of John the Baptist.
But I may be missing something. Is this not a viable idea?
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:54 pm
I assume that Ken is saying that Luke interpreted Mark as an adoptionist text
Yes, you're probably right.
Sorry, I wrote a reply but it seems to have disappeared into cyberspace.
I'm not arguing that Mark intended to imply that Jesus became the Son of God by adoption. I'm arguing that Matthew and Luke put a good deal of effort into cleaning up potential theological problems Mark left.
But I found where I addressed this earlier (though not explicitly addressing adoptionism):
Mark's story of Jesus Baptism left unintended theological consequences that the later evangelists tried to clean up in their different ways. If John baptized Jesus, indeed if Jesus received the holy spirit through his baptism by John, wouldn't that make John greater than Jesus? And second, if John preached a baptism of repentance for remission of sins, and Jesus came to be John to be baptized, wouldn't that suggest that Jesus had sins he needed to repent for and have remitted?
Matthew seeks to address the problem directly by having John say it was rather he that needed to be baptized by Jesus, but baptizes Jesus because Jesus told him to and said it would 'fulfill all righteousness'. Clumsy, but it addresses the issue that it had to address.
Luke, on the other hand, makes it clear that even before their births it was revealed that John's purpose in life was to prepare the way for Jesus. Then he narrates that was John arrested in Luke 3.19-20, before Jesus is baptized in Luke 3.21, so we don't know who baptized Jesus in Luke.
Matthew and Luke's additions and alterations to Mark regarding John the Baptist are quite understandable as the evangelists' own creations, which were efforts to fix the theological problems Mark had inadvertently left.
Best,
Ken
Thank you for your detailed reply.
Over time, i tend to radicalize my approach to the NT and since I consider Mt, Lk and Jn to be fan fictions, I tend to ignore them completely.
What's your take on Mark in relation to Jesus' divine filiation? Do you think Mark presents him as the son of God and the son of a woman as Paul does in Galatians 4:4?
Since I consider Mark to be a pro-Pauline gospel, I find it logical that he joins Paul in this contradictory idea.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:15 pm
I don't think any of the evangelists that were later gathered into the four gospel canon meant for his work to be read alongside other gospels which had equal authority.
I sometimes wonder about John vis-a-vis Mark, whether it was intended to be a John and Mark situation by the author of John. The idea that John attempted to supplement a gospel like Mark seems at least possible. The focus of the dialogue is very different, and there might even be something to the idea of the church fathers that John intended to fill in the blanks prior to the arrest of John the Baptist.
But I may be missing something. Is this not a viable idea?
John is a possible exception with regard to Mark. Richard Bauckham argued for that thesis in the chapter 'John for Readers of Mark' in his Gospel for All Christians (1998).
Wendy Sproston North argued against Bauckahm in 'John for Readers of Mark? A Response to Richard Bauckham's Proposal' in JSNT 25.4 (2003) 449-468.
ABTSRACT
This article is a response to Richard Bauckham’s second contribution to the influential volume The Gospels for All Christians, in which he proposes that the Fourth Gospel was not written specifically for the Johannine community but for Christians in general. Following a general summary of his argument, the response focuses largely on Bauckham’s exegesis of Jn 11.2, which, he claims, was unequivocally directed to readers who knew Mark’s Gospel but who had no knowledge of distinctively Johannine traditions. In the main section, Bauckham’s argument is summarized under five points, each of which is answered by detailed comment. This investigation finds that his interpretation of 11.2, which is the single basis upon which his whole case is constructed, is flawed.
I'd have to reread those to remember the details of the arguments, but I thought she had the better of it.
I think John knew all the synoptics and thought they were completely inadequate in their christologies.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:15 pm
I don't think any of the evangelists that were later gathered into the four gospel canon meant for his work to be read alongside other gospels which had equal authority.
I sometimes wonder about John vis-a-vis Mark, whether it was intended to be a John and Mark situation by the author of John. The idea that John attempted to supplement a gospel like Mark seems at least possible. The focus of the dialogue is very different, and there might even be something to the idea of the church fathers that John intended to fill in the blanks prior to the arrest of John the Baptist.
But I may be missing something. Is this not a viable idea?
John is a possible exception with regard to Mark. Richard Bauckham argued for that thesis in the chapter 'John for Readers of Mark' in his Gospel for All Christians (1998).
Wendy Sproston North argued against Bauckahm in 'John for Readers of Mark? A Response to Richard Bauckham's Proposal' in JSNT 25.4 (2003) 449-468.
ABTSRACT
This article is a response to Richard Bauckham’s second contribution to the influential volume The Gospels for All Christians, in which he proposes that the Fourth Gospel was not written specifically for the Johannine community but for Christians in general. Following a general summary of his argument, the response focuses largely on Bauckham’s exegesis of Jn 11.2, which, he claims, was unequivocally directed to readers who knew Mark’s Gospel but who had no knowledge of distinctively Johannine traditions. In the main section, Bauckham’s argument is summarized under five points, each of which is answered by detailed comment. This investigation finds that his interpretation of 11.2, which is the single basis upon which his whole case is constructed, is flawed.
I'd have to reread those to remember the details of the arguments, but I thought she had the better of it.
I think John knew all the synoptics and thought they were completely inadequate in their christologies.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:15 pm
So I think Luke is writing in reaction to Matthew and saw the advantage in including an infancy narrative, as Matthew had.
where is the evidence that Matthew had an infancy narrative? A birth story, yes, but not an infancy narrative.
Hence your scenario is left without a valid explanation about why Luke felt obliged to add the infancy narrative (= the circumcision and the child Jesus who explains the Torah to the fathers of the people who will condemn him to death).
At contrary, my scenario gives the explanation: Luke couldn't quote Hosea 11:1.
