There is internal rhyme in verse 31 ( HeeNayH ThahHahReeY VeThayLDeeY BayN),Īnd 32a rhymes with 32b ( HOo’ GahDOL YeHeYayH with OoBeN-'eLYON YeeQahRay’ (pronounced yeheyay and yeekahray – accents on the last syllables)), an illustration of Dr. Luke’s presentation is consistent with Daniel’s exhortation to the Maccabees 150 years earlier that the struggle against the gentiles would prove to be the war that ended all wars. While Matthew presents Jesus as the son of God, Luke presents him as a son of David, the Jewish messiah (Christ), anointed (“christened”) by God, prophesized to reunite Israel and restore the kingdom once and for all. Īnd YHVH Gods will give to him seat David his father ģ3 and he will king upon house Yah-`ahQoB to forever Le'OLahM]ģ1 “Behold, you will conceive and birth a son,Īnd you will call his name *YayShOo'ah. is in this paragraph.” (Gilmour, 1952, pp. For that matter, apart from the first chapter of Matthew, the only reference to the doctrine in the N. It is implied in the editorial parenthesis (‘as was supposed’) in Luke’s version of Jesus’ genealogy (3:25) but nowhere else in the body of the Third Gospel. It has no place in the birth and infancy narratives in Luke 2:1-52 which assume throughout that Joseph was one of Jesus’ parents (2:27, 33, 41, 43, 48). “The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is not articulated as part of the primitive Christian kerygma in the epistles of Paul or in the early chapters of the book of Acts… There is no hint of it in Mark’s Gospel or in the common tradition of Matthew and Luke. One wishes the story would end differently.Ĭhronologically, both Mark and Luke probably preceded Matthew, so from Mark, with no birth narrative at all we proceed to Luke, who gives us the stories of the births of both John the Baptist and Jesus. I had to struggle a bit over whether to skip John for the nonce, but my methodology has been to crank right through in the order presented, and besides, although not a synoptic gospel, John should provide an entirely new perspective for that very reason. I would say, though a close reading of it remains ahead of me, that Acts is Luke’s more significant contribution, for it tells, which the other gospels do not, what happened immediately following the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, among some of those who chose to follow him. It becomes clearer that a characteristic difference between The Interpreters’ Bible and Adam Clarke is the former’s exploration of the apparent discontinuities among the texts and the latter’s syncretic tendencies. I told Joy that I’m “getting into” the synoptic problem, and that this review would probably be, therefore, rather boring. I found myself less moved, but taking many more notes. Derivative as it is of Mark, Luke adds materials not found in Mark.
0 kommentar(er)
