The Gospel of Luke denies Jesus died for our sins! (2021-07-05) ​

0:00:01 good evening uh my name is paul williams
0:00:04 uh
0:00:04 here on blogging theology um it's eight
0:00:07 o'clock in the evening here in france
0:00:08 and i am
0:00:09 very honored and happy to welcome dale
0:00:12 martian professor dale martin
0:00:14 who is in texas usa good afternoon to
0:00:18 you sir
0:00:19 thank you good afternoon or morning or
0:00:21 whatever it is
0:00:22 yeah it's all very confusing um
0:00:25 time is all relative it is i forget who
0:00:28 once said that
0:00:29 yes um so uh today
0:00:32 we are going to tackle uh one of the
0:00:34 most interesting subjects i think
0:00:36 uh in new testament studies and that is
0:00:38 the gospel of
0:00:39 luke and the acts of the apostles this
0:00:42 is a
0:00:42 in a way a single work or a work by one
0:00:45 person and i let
0:00:47 professor dale martin describe in detail
0:00:49 what that's about but i'm just going to
0:00:51 quote the overview from his book new
0:00:54 testament history and literature
0:00:56 uh published by year which i do
0:00:57 recommend very much
0:00:59 and in the overview um dale writes
0:01:02 luke and axe two volumes of one work
0:01:06 are structured very carefully by the
0:01:08 author to outline the ministry of jesus
0:01:11 and the spread of the gospel to the
0:01:13 gentiles
0:01:15 the gospel of luke emphasizes the themes
0:01:17 of jesus jewish
0:01:18 piety his role as a rejected prophet
0:01:22 and the reversal of earthly status
0:01:25 the gospel of luke ends in jerusalem and
0:01:28 the acts of the apostles begins there
0:01:30 and then follows the spread of the
0:01:33 movement to samaria
0:01:35 and the gentiles by closely analyzing
0:01:39 the gospel
0:01:40 of luke and axe we see that the author
0:01:43 was not concerned with historicity or
0:01:46 chronological order
0:01:48 rather he writes his orderly account to
0:01:51 illustrate the rejection of the gospel
0:01:53 by most of the jews
0:01:55 and its consequence spread to the
0:01:57 gentiles
0:01:59 end quote so that's very interesting
0:02:02 survey
0:02:03 and there's so much there to unpack um
0:02:06 but can i just begin if i may
0:02:08 uh asking you about question the
0:02:10 question of
0:02:11 authorship and the date of this huge
0:02:14 work uh in the new testament
0:02:18 let's go with the most easy thing first
0:02:21 which is the date
0:02:23 right we know that whoever wrote the
0:02:26 gospel of luke
0:02:28 used the gospel of mark as one of his
0:02:31 sources
0:02:33 we think or at least i think that we can
0:02:36 date
0:02:37 the writing of the gospel of mark or at
0:02:39 least its publication now you have to
0:02:41 realize that
0:02:42 in the ancient world publication doesn't
0:02:44 mean the same thing as it does in the
0:02:45 modern world
0:02:46 publication just meant a bunch of
0:02:48 scribes copying
0:02:50 things down and sending them out to
0:02:51 their friends right
0:02:54 but let's just put let's date the
0:02:57 gospel of mark at around the year 70
0:03:01 just because he predicts
0:03:05 in mark 13 the surrounding of jerusalem
0:03:08 by the romans
0:03:10 but he does not depict the destruction
0:03:13 of jerusalem
0:03:15 while jerusalem was destroyed
0:03:20 one of the things that scholars use to
0:03:22 try to figure out
0:03:24 when does a prophetic text date
0:03:27 itself is to say when does it go wrong
0:03:34 interesting because prophetic texts
0:03:37 always give you a past
0:03:38 history to try to make you believe that
0:03:41 they're dependent
0:03:42 that they're dependable
0:03:47 but then when you get to the point where
0:03:50 the prophecy goes wrong that's when you
0:03:54 date
0:03:55 the document it's worked for daniel the
0:03:59 book of daniel
0:04:00 we can we can say daniel was written in
0:04:04 164
0:04:06 bce that's very unusual to be able to
0:04:09 date
0:04:10 any ancient document to that but it's
0:04:14 because
0:04:16 he predicts the surrounding of the
0:04:18 temple but they're not the
0:04:20 uh rest of the things that happened
0:04:24 his his his predictions just start going
0:04:27 wrong
0:04:29 and that's when you date the document
0:04:33 so it's very useful anyway mark is
0:04:37 mark marcus almost certainly
0:04:40 has to be dated to around the year 70
0:04:42 because
0:04:43 then his predictions go wrong
0:04:48 and so if luke used mark as a
0:04:52 source then you must suppose
0:04:56 scholars argue about us all the time
0:05:00 what must you suppose but
0:05:03 if luke knows something about mark but
0:05:06 mark was published
0:05:07 around 70 then does that mean luke can
0:05:10 come before 80
0:05:13 because you have to have time it's not
0:05:15 like the wall street journal comes out
0:05:20 and tells you what the top 10 reading is
0:05:23 you have to have time for books to
0:05:25 circulate they have to be copied
0:05:27 hand by hand by slaves usually
0:05:31 and then copied and copied and copied
0:05:33 and then sent
0:05:34 out and taken out by actual
0:05:37 human persons uh carrying them to their
0:05:41 friends
0:05:43 i mean how long does it take to get from
0:05:46 mark to luke
0:05:48 Music
0:05:50 and then mark to john
0:05:54 so we scholars are just in a guessing
0:05:57 game
0:05:58 but i think that luke and axe is so
0:06:01 fascinating because it's a two volume
0:06:03 that came out i would say
0:06:08 40 years after the death of jesus and
0:06:11 50 years out after the writings of the
0:06:14 apostle paul
0:06:20 and luke betrays knowledge uh of
0:06:23 the events in ad70
0:06:26 that mark in mark 13 has some knowledge
0:06:29 of but not complete knowledge but luke
0:06:32 fills out some further information about
0:06:34 armies
0:06:35 um circling or attacking jerusalem which
0:06:38 betrays
0:06:39 a contemporaneous or historical
0:06:41 knowledge of those events which he then
0:06:43 colors and fills in which is absent from
0:06:45 mark
0:06:46 so that dates him after mark obviously
0:06:50 um although according to according to
0:06:52 mark
0:06:54 the the the roman armies surround
0:06:56 jerusalem
0:06:57 just around the year 69 or 70
0:07:00 because the temple's not destroyed yet
0:07:02 there's been no uh
0:07:04 abomination of desolation uh
0:07:07 i dot and you know idolatrous object
0:07:09 raised in jerusalem at that time
0:07:12 so you know we can pretty be pretty sure
0:07:15 about when mark is dated
0:07:17 and you know it's just then luke comes
0:07:20 along and he says
0:07:21 oh well no it's not going to all happen
0:07:25 immediately first you have to have
0:07:29 the gentiles surround jerusalem and
0:07:32 it down
0:07:33 i mean and he basically predicts the
0:07:35 destruction of jerusalem
0:07:39 which had not happened when mark was
0:07:42 written and
0:07:44 and then he says the time of the
0:07:46 gentiles
0:07:49 he has a technical term for the
0:07:51 extension
0:07:52 of eschatological apocalyptic time
0:07:56 this is what happens in these kinds of
0:07:59 religious writings is that
0:08:01 time just gets stretched out
0:08:04 um and so that's what you get and
0:08:08 luke is mark's timetable just doesn't
0:08:12 suit him anymore
0:08:14 because he's looking around himself and
0:08:16 he's going well wait a minute the romans
0:08:18 aren't
0:08:19 here
0:08:22 you know why are we still doing this
0:08:24 thing that we're doing
0:08:26 and so luke extends the time
0:08:31 between what mark had said and what he
0:08:33 says
0:08:34 so the times of the gentiles are luke's
0:08:37 technical term which he probably just
0:08:39 invented himself for
0:08:43 a time between the different comings of
0:08:47 jesus
0:08:48 really and of course it is a very
0:08:51 elastic
0:08:52 term because what is this time of the
0:08:54 gentiles is it is it
0:08:56 a decade 100 years a millennium um
0:08:58 there's kind of no
0:09:00 limits to it uh no the people the people
0:09:02 in the church i grew up in said the time
0:09:04 we were living in the time of the
0:09:06 gentiles
0:09:06 exactly um yeah absolutely one of the
0:09:10 the things that really struck me when i
0:09:12 first read about the gospel of
0:09:14 luke and acts as well uh
0:09:18 in new testament scholarship was this
0:09:20 extraordinary discovery that scholars
0:09:23 have made
0:09:23 um discovery is the right word but it's
0:09:26 there in the text
0:09:27 that unlike mark mark is very clear
0:09:31 that jesus was an atonement
0:09:34 um that luke sorry that mark has a
0:09:37 doctrine of the atonement in mark 10 45
0:09:40 jesus uh as the son of man is a ransom
0:09:44 uh for many is offered as a ransom for
0:09:47 many
0:09:47 but in mark who uses sorry in luke who
0:09:50 uses mark
0:09:51 that particular verse is omitted
0:09:54 and there are other verses also in mark
0:09:57 that seem to be
0:09:58 either altered or admit omitted um
0:10:01 to remove this sense of of jesus being
0:10:04 an atoning sacrifice for sin so it
0:10:07 appears
0:10:08 that luke doesn't have this doctrine he
0:10:10 just he
0:10:11 he rejects it in a way because he's
0:10:13 clearly edited or redacted the text he
0:10:16 is using which does have that doctrine
0:10:19 um and you find this also in acts i
0:10:21 think and you you point this out in the
0:10:23 sermons attributed to
0:10:24 the apostles peter and so on nowhere
0:10:27 does it say i think
0:10:29 that jesus's death was an atonement for
0:10:31 sin and atoning sacrifice
0:10:33 and through that death itself people
0:10:36 are reconciled to god no there's another
0:10:39 way that people
0:10:40 receive salvation which perhaps you
0:10:42 could explain
0:10:43 what this mechanism is how is it people
0:10:45 are saved if not through the death of
0:10:47 jesus
0:10:48 has an atoning sacrifice so um
0:10:52 this is something that is a great
0:10:53 surprise to people i'm sure to learn
0:10:55 that according to luke
0:10:57 jesus's death is not in itself the
0:11:00 actual cause
0:11:01 of reconciliation with god
0:11:04 is that is that correct you think yes
0:11:07 that's quite correct
0:11:08 and but i mean
0:11:12 so i'm sorry my brain is exploding
0:11:15 um i you've hit on so many
0:11:19 important issues one of the most
0:11:22 important is that
0:11:23 luke x is one of the most astounding
0:11:26 documents in history
0:11:27 in my view it you said when we first
0:11:30 started talking about that
0:11:31 matthew was your favorite gospel and i
0:11:34 remember thinking
0:11:35 matthew are you kidding me
0:11:39 you know matthew is boring now luke
0:11:42 is interesting um
0:11:46 but part of it is because you've got two
0:11:48 documents you've got
0:11:49 two volumes
0:11:52 you know a volume could only be about
0:11:54 what you would roll up on a
0:11:56 scroll and if you notice
0:11:59 both luke and axe are about the same
0:12:02 length
0:12:02 right which is probably because they
0:12:05 could each be
0:12:06 rolled up on a scroll that you could
0:12:09 handle now of course
0:12:11 you could make a scroll as big as you
0:12:12 wanted which is why we see you know
0:12:14 these paintings and pictures
0:12:16 of the jewish torah um
0:12:19 on a huge scroll yeah
0:12:23 you know has two sticks that go out
0:12:25 forever you know
0:12:26 yeah but that's not a normal scroll um
0:12:30 and so the book of luke and the book of
0:12:34 acts
0:12:34 could each occupy easily one scroll
0:12:39 and i think that's why they were put out
0:12:42 differently
0:12:43 yeah but that's not the only reason
0:12:46 because luke is so clearly fashioned as
0:12:49 a
0:12:50 biography not a modern biography but
0:12:53 an ancient bios we call it a life yeah
0:12:56 because there are certain things that a
0:12:59 bios was supposed to include you had to
0:13:01 include
0:13:02 the child's birth and its genealogy
0:13:05 because he had to be descended from
0:13:07 respectable people then you had to have
0:13:10 his upbringing
0:13:11 as from his nursery and then his going
0:13:14 to school
0:13:15 and is going to high school and
0:13:17 rhetorical school
0:13:18 and then his you know becoming the great
0:13:22 you know political figure that he was
0:13:24 and
0:13:25 it didn't matter whether you were
0:13:26 writing about look at plutarch plutarch
0:13:29 was this
0:13:29 uh writer who wrote around
0:13:33 the year 100 120 and he wrote an
0:13:36 entire series of parallel lives
0:13:39 he would take a greek and a roman
0:13:43 so julius caesar and
0:13:48 well who would be julius caesar's
0:13:50 alexander the great
0:13:52 so he would pair two great figures one
0:13:56 from the greek world one from the roman
0:13:58 world
0:13:59 and then he would illustrate all of
0:14:01 their
0:14:02 virtues and their flaws
0:14:06 and it's just such moralistic
0:14:10 you know writing that i
0:14:13 i find myself thinking how could we ever
0:14:16 escape from that
0:14:19 you know how could i ever write about
0:14:21 paul or jesus
0:14:23 in a parallel context without falling
0:14:26 into some kind of trap
0:14:34 so coming back to uh this idea of jesus
0:14:38 as um what is the mechanism
0:14:42 uh by which people are saved in the
0:14:44 preaching of
0:14:45 acts and and in luke's redaction
0:14:48 rewriting of mark and adding his own
0:14:50 material of course q and other matters
0:14:53 what is the message how are people saved
0:14:55 then for luke if it's not by this
0:14:57 atoning sacrifice
0:14:59 well and and i'm sorry i got distracted
0:15:01 by talking about the literary structures
0:15:03 of luke and axe and
0:15:04 kind of got distracted from your
0:15:08 original question which was
0:15:09 what do you do about the um
0:15:12 you know the death of jesus yeah
0:15:15 um well i just think that
0:15:18 for uh and i don't know why
0:15:23 different early disciples of jesus
0:15:28 wanted to take different tracks
0:15:32 in interpreting the death of jesus
0:15:36 as either a sacrifice or a not sacrifice
0:15:40 an atonement or a non-atonement
0:15:45 the only thing that i can think probably
0:15:47 is the case and this is something that
0:15:49 some grad student needs to spend a lot
0:15:52 of time working on
0:15:55 were there anti-atonement forms of
0:15:59 judaism at the time
0:16:01 and what did they look like so could
0:16:04 part of christianity
0:16:06 have developed out of an anti-atonement
0:16:10 kind of judaism i mean i don't think
0:16:13 anything
0:16:14 i don't think he can make any case that
0:16:16 any
0:16:17 form of christianity in its earliest
0:16:19 sense it came out of a non-jewish
0:16:22 background i think it has to be jewish
0:16:25 um but that doesn't tell you what kind
0:16:28 of jewish
0:16:31 and i don't even you know is there
0:16:36 so there are parts of the hebrew bible
0:16:38 that don't
0:16:40 emphasize the atonement but what they
0:16:42 emphasize
0:16:43 is the dramatic
0:16:48 example of the prophet
0:16:52 of god the holy man
0:16:56 who's able to heal by putting his mouth
0:17:00 on a corpse
0:17:01 yeah but he's also a prophet
0:17:05 in the sense of isaiah and elijah
0:17:08 were prophets yeah and
0:17:12 so that that's what luke and ax is
0:17:16 coming out of
0:17:18 because there seems to be at least a
0:17:20 couple of strands in the what we call
0:17:21 the old testament there is the
0:17:23 the the temple focus strand the cultic
0:17:26 strand but also
0:17:27 almost almost an anti-temple strand
0:17:31 absolutely i mean this is something that
0:17:32 any
0:17:34 any person who goes to seminary should
0:17:36 have seen their first
0:17:37 year in you know introduction to the
0:17:40 hebrew bible
0:17:42 is the strong the
0:17:45 these two real conflicting forces
0:17:49 of pro-temple and anti-temple
0:17:52 i mean it's all over the place in the
0:17:53 songs yeah
0:17:55 it's quite surprising is there an axe as
0:17:57 well the first martyr the proto martyr
0:18:00 um stephen is is uh his long rambling
0:18:04 speech
0:18:04 um is quite anti-temple uh in many ways
0:18:07 and it certainly
0:18:08 uh upset the uh the pharisees the the
0:18:11 religious authorities that they had him
0:18:12 killed
0:18:14 yeah he's he basically is against two
0:18:16 things
0:18:17 the mosaic torah and the temple
0:18:22 yeah so and he he wants
0:18:25 that's why i say but the fact is if you
0:18:27 look at
0:18:28 all the rest of luke and acts
0:18:31 the narrative argues against that
0:18:34 it has jesus and his family super pious
0:18:38 toward the temple
0:18:39 and paul as well he's a tall observant
0:18:42 jew which is
0:18:43 absolutely have you have you not met
0:18:46 paul and read his letter to the
0:18:48 galatians
0:18:49 he made he makes a vow according to acts
0:18:53 yeah and and pays for three other guys
0:18:56 to you know fulfill their vows
0:19:00 and you just go does this sound like
0:19:03 paul of the letters well maybe maybe it
0:19:05 does i mean
0:19:06 i i love the kind of opinion that paul
0:19:10 could be so up that we would
0:19:12 never understand it
0:19:13 okay but um
0:19:18 i do think he was complicated and i
0:19:20 don't think that we can make him
0:19:22 consistent
0:19:24 that that seems to be a great reticence
0:19:26 on behalf of many scholars
0:19:28 who just to admit that he might just not
0:19:30 be consistent
0:19:31 he might just one thing in romans
0:19:33 another in galatians
0:19:34 another thing somewhere else and the
0:19:36 desire to harmonize and make him
0:19:38 seems to be a presupposition of so much
0:19:40 exegesis and i'm thinking
0:19:41 hang on let paul be paul and
0:19:44 have his word and it's messy and
0:19:47 complicated as you say
0:19:49 yeah um so in terms of forgiveness then
0:19:52 it
0:19:53 is the way that people are forgiven for
0:19:55 luke
0:19:56 uh and in the preaching in acts simply
0:19:59 by repentance
0:20:00 to god yes yes repentance i think is
0:20:03 i think repentance is very strong in
0:20:05 luke and acts
0:20:07 right um and
0:20:10 uh simply striving to be the
0:20:13 the proper prophetic person
0:20:16 right and i think that's almost a
0:20:19 universal call
0:20:21 in luke and acts it's not like only
0:20:23 certain people can be
0:20:26 prophetic i think luke and acts tries to
0:20:29 give
0:20:30 court forth the feeling that that's the
0:20:33 meaning of
0:20:34 christianity is being prophetic
0:20:37 um speaking out for the poor speaking
0:20:40 against the rich speaking you know
0:20:43 justice and these kinds of things um
0:20:46 and so i um
0:20:51 i just find uh
0:20:54 luke and acts um interesting for so many
0:20:58 reasons
0:20:59 including the literary reasons the
0:21:01 theological reasons
0:21:03 the reasons that it departs so much from
0:21:05 other aspects of the new testament such
0:21:07 as
0:21:08 the idea that there's no atonement in it
0:21:11 um that's it
0:21:16 how do you have a christianity without
0:21:18 atonement well exactly
0:21:20 um so we're looking here at you know
0:21:23 the elephant in the elephant in the room
0:21:25 you know it's there in plain
0:21:27 sight and yet no one sees it which is a
0:21:30 non-atonement
0:21:31 christianity in the new testament in
0:21:35 in a gospel itself and preached by jesus
0:21:38 preached by
0:21:39 peter the apostles they're all preaching
0:21:42 it
0:21:42 and yet it it doesn't register we
0:21:45 the catholic church still does what it
0:21:47 does and the evangelicals still preach
0:21:49 what they do and
0:21:50 um but can i just ask is a slightly
0:21:53 random question i'm just looking at
0:21:56 in the end of uh the gospel of luke on
0:21:58 the
0:21:59 road to emmaus story i'm not concerned
0:22:02 whether or not it's historical but
0:22:04 it's um obviously jesus uh
0:22:07 these guys are uh are walking um
0:22:10 uh to or from jerusalem talking about
0:22:13 what's happened they've heard about
0:22:14 uh jesus and about uh his death
0:22:17 and um and then jesus walks along with
0:22:20 them
0:22:21 and um and and jesus says are you
0:22:24 sorry they said jesus are you the only
0:22:26 stranger in jerusalem who does not know
0:22:27 the things that have taken place
0:22:29 in these days and he asked them he jesus
0:22:32 asked them what things and they
0:22:33 the disciples say the things about jesus
0:22:37 of nazareth
0:22:38 who was a prophet mighty indeed and were
0:22:41 before god
0:22:42 and all the people that the reason i'm
0:22:45 highlighting this
0:22:46 is is is this do you think what luke
0:22:49 believes
0:22:50 about jesus coming at the end here that
0:22:53 he was a prophet mighty indeed and were
0:22:55 before god
0:22:56 i mean look i'm trying to guess we don't
0:22:59 see here the second person of the
0:23:01 trinity do we we don't see here
0:23:03 the divine son who becomes human
0:23:06 in the womb of mary so
0:23:09 is this luke's christology in a nutshell
0:23:11 there or or is that cherry picking
0:23:13 in a way no
0:23:16 i always try to teach my students never
0:23:19 ignore how a book begins and how the
0:23:21 book
0:23:22 ends um
0:23:25 any good writer now there are a lot of
0:23:28 bad writers
0:23:29 yeah but any good writer will give you
0:23:33 signals at the beginning of the book and
0:23:35 the end of the book
0:23:36 right because
0:23:39 you know we're told don't bury your lead
0:23:44 you know come out come out with
0:23:47 the strongest thing you have to come out
0:23:49 with and then end with the strongest
0:23:50 thing you can end with
0:23:52 right that's what we're taught and for
0:23:54 good reason
0:23:56 that's what i've that's how i've taught
0:23:58 writing over the years
0:24:00 so so for luke jesus was a mighty
0:24:04 prophet of god
0:24:06 uh uh and god did
0:24:09 amazing miracles and signs and wonders
0:24:12 through
0:24:12 jesus i'm actually paraphrasing acts 2
0:24:15 22 here of course
0:24:16 which is also by luke um a mighty word
0:24:19 indeed
0:24:20 um okay now one of the arguments used
0:24:23 against your position
0:24:25 the idea of a non-atonement jesus
0:24:28 in luke um is the story of the last
0:24:32 supper
0:24:32 of course um and that's found
0:24:36 um just trying to find it um
0:24:39 the the so-called looking the uh the new
0:24:41 revised standard version
0:24:43 here uh the institution of the lord's
0:24:45 supper
0:24:46 um uh where he jesus says
0:24:50 in the main text here i'm not looking at
0:24:51 the footnote of course then he took a
0:24:53 loaf of bread and when he gave him
0:24:54 thanks he broke it and gave
0:24:56 uh gave it to them saying this is my
0:24:59 body which is given for you do this in
0:25:00 remembrance of me
0:25:02 he did the same with a cup after supper
0:25:04 saying this cup that is poured
0:25:06 out for you is the new covenant in
0:25:09 my blood now this
0:25:12 this uh that's in the in the text
0:25:16 of the bible in the nrsv
0:25:20 um does this not counter your
0:25:24 view of a non-toning sacrifice of jesus
0:25:28 and luke okay well
0:25:31 you didn't actually point out where you
0:25:33 thought it was atonement
0:25:35 to theology okay so
0:25:38 if i say something this is for you
0:25:43 that in itself is not atonement
0:25:48 it could mean a million things
0:25:51 this is the problem with people who
0:25:53 tried to read certain
0:25:56 texts of scripture as settling their own
0:25:59 meaning
0:26:00 like the text all i have to do is quote
0:26:02 back to you the text and that settles
0:26:04 the meaning
0:26:05 yeah yeah well no it doesn't
0:26:08 you know the meaning is not settled that
0:26:10 easily
0:26:12 and so we have to talk about what the
0:26:15 meaning of the text is
0:26:16 and the meaning of the text may change
0:26:18 and it means it may be complicated
0:26:20 maybe multiple so when i mean i know
0:26:24 exactly what you're saying people have
0:26:25 just read this
0:26:26 this is for you this is my body which is
0:26:30 given for you
0:26:32 well you just dump all atonement
0:26:35 theology into it
0:26:38 whereas historians are supposed to pick
0:26:40 things out
0:26:41 and say well where could this come
0:26:45 meaning come from and where could this
0:26:46 mean come from and do all these meanings
0:26:49 all
0:26:49 converge on the same place or do we need
0:26:52 to
0:26:53 pick out different meanings
0:26:57 so i just i think all you have to do is
0:27:01 take matthew and mark and set them
0:27:05 together
0:27:05 they're kind of very similar when it
0:27:08 comes to this issue with tomlin
0:27:11 and also when it comes to the chronology
0:27:13 of their gospels
0:27:15 and then you take luke and acts and you
0:27:18 said it over here
0:27:20 and it's also different with chronology
0:27:23 it's
0:27:24 messed around with the chronology all
0:27:26 over the place
0:27:27 transposed chronology yeah
0:27:31 and different theology and then you get
0:27:35 john over here i mean john is a
0:27:39 totally different story really
0:27:43 i mean so look at these piles of data
0:27:46 that you have
0:27:48 and i just viewed my job as a historian
0:27:52 of the bible to try to deal with these
0:27:55 different piles in as honest a way i
0:27:58 could
0:27:59 right because there's a footnote at the
0:28:02 the bottom of this passage in luke 22
0:28:05 which says
0:28:06 other ancient authorities lack in whole
0:28:09 or in part
0:28:10 versus 19 to 20
0:28:13 which is given in my blood
0:28:17 so some have argued that in fact um
0:28:20 the the blood atonement uh
0:28:24 that is the belief of some christians in
0:28:25 the first century
0:28:27 is not really there in luke it's been
0:28:29 added by a later scribe
0:28:31 yes and um even though it is in
0:28:34 other ancient manuscripts but given
0:28:36 luke's overall
0:28:38 overarching absence of any blood
0:28:40 atonement
0:28:42 um this looks like a scribal
0:28:45 interpolation an addition yeah and
0:28:48 the best the best argument for that
0:28:52 comes from uh my friend bart ehrman
0:28:56 e h r m a n
0:28:59 um and he and another
0:29:02 scholar whose name is slipping me at
0:29:05 this
0:29:06 moment i'm sorry wrote an article
0:29:08 arguing that
0:29:10 the part in luke about jesus's blood
0:29:14 uh sweating blood
0:29:18 was a later addition to try to make
0:29:21 the passion in luke more like the
0:29:25 passion and the other gospels
0:29:27 right that is as an atonement
0:29:30 and then that got included in uh one of
0:29:33 bart's books
0:29:35 so it's an it's easy to find it's in one
0:29:37 of the books
0:29:38 that he published recently but it's also
0:29:41 published as an article that you could
0:29:44 probably find online
0:29:47 but anyway it's really interesting to
0:29:49 see
0:29:51 he and this other guy trace back the
0:29:53 different
0:29:54 scribal changes to all of those texts
0:29:58 as they tried to make luke look more
0:30:01 like matthew and mark
0:30:02 right so there's been a later scribe
0:30:04 i'll attempt to harmonize and bring into
0:30:06 conformity
0:30:08 luke uh who perhaps originally was not
0:30:10 was a bit of a oddball he wasn't quite
0:30:12 telling the
0:30:13 the proto-orthodox line um but i i
0:30:16 wanted to stress
0:30:17 in the earlier gospel of mark which
0:30:20 scholars pretty much
0:30:22 universally believe luke used
0:30:26 when he was writing his own account in
0:30:28 mark's gospel
0:30:29 in 1045 we have the verse for the son of
0:30:32 man
0:30:33 came not to be served but to serve
0:30:36 and to give his life as a ransom
0:30:39 for many it's a key verse and we find it
0:30:42 in matthew as well i think
0:30:44 but oddly is missing from luke
0:30:47 suggesting to many scholars that luke
0:30:50 deliberately
0:30:51 excised it omitted it from his account
0:30:54 and that tells us something about luke's
0:30:57 agenda what his understanding of
0:30:59 jesus death was so what was because for
0:31:02 luke of course jesus certainly did die
0:31:03 on the cross and rose again from the
0:31:05 dead
0:31:05 what was the point of significance for
0:31:07 luke then of jesus death
0:31:10 on the cross do you think
0:31:14 oh man um you're asking someone who's
0:31:18 not an
0:31:18 expert i do not consider myself an
0:31:21 expert on luke
0:31:22 um i mean you would think that as a new
0:31:25 testament scholar
0:31:27 you're only responsible for like a book
0:31:29 that's about that thick
0:31:30 so you know you would think that saying
0:31:33 oh i know
0:31:34 all about paul but i don't know about
0:31:36 luke
0:31:37 is kind of special pleading and i'm
0:31:40 sure it may be but um
0:31:43 there are several things that occur to
0:31:45 me about luke with related to your
0:31:47 question that i would
0:31:49 i guess i'd want to spend a whole lot
0:31:51 more time looking at
0:31:53 Music
0:31:56 including even the
0:31:59 manuscript tradition that is how did the
0:32:02 different greek manuscripts get
0:32:05 uh transcribed and changed the way they
0:32:08 did
0:32:08 and how is it translated into latin um
0:32:16 but i mean quite briefly
0:32:19 what your quest your question just
0:32:21 exposes is
0:32:22 how interesting the field
0:32:25 of new testament studies is
0:32:29 because you know we've got uh
0:32:32 these different gospels that the more we
0:32:35 read them the more we think
0:32:37 they disagree with one another then
0:32:39 rather than agree with one another
0:32:42 um indeed i mean it's actually in my at
0:32:45 the death in
0:32:46 jesus death in mark you have a centurion
0:32:49 or a roman soldier saying
0:32:51 truly he was god's son as the nrsv says
0:32:54 or
0:32:55 it says in the bottom truly he was a son
0:32:57 of god
0:32:58 a son of god exactly but then in luke's
0:33:01 version
0:33:02 exactly the same story he's obviously
0:33:05 familiar with
0:33:05 uh mark the reasons we mentioned he has
0:33:09 truly he was an innocent man
0:33:12 or that's right so interesting switch
0:33:15 there he's no longer god's son
0:33:17 he's an innocent man it goes it goes
0:33:20 along with what i've been trying to say
0:33:22 about luke's christology
0:33:25 right jesus is a prophet
0:33:29 he's a great prophet and he's a healer
0:33:32 yeah but luke's not going to go the
0:33:35 trinitarian route
0:33:37 um and
0:33:41 so yeah that's a very important change
0:33:44 when he takes
0:33:45 marks a son of god
0:33:48 which could be interpreted in itself
0:33:50 many different ways
0:33:52 yeah and changes that to an innocent man
0:33:57 that's super important for luke yeah
0:34:00 because it's that crucial moment of the
0:34:02 death of jesus you have a gentile
0:34:04 proclaiming the significance this
0:34:07 innocence
0:34:08 innocence of any crime not he was a sin
0:34:11 offering or
0:34:12 behold god has died for our sins or
0:34:14 anything like that no
0:34:15 no and of course but that's that's uh
0:34:18 the
0:34:18 genius of luke axe i think is that that
0:34:22 just foreshadows
0:34:23 everything that's going to happen in
0:34:24 acts
0:34:27 that scene is like
0:34:30 it's i just can't believe the guy
0:34:33 consciously constructed it this way
0:34:36 but it sounds like it was consciously
0:34:39 constructed
0:34:41 to have the last scene in luke
0:34:44 be all of acts right
0:34:48 yeah just just saying on the death if i
0:34:50 may for a second he marks
0:34:52 a count of the death of jesus at the
0:34:55 time of his death
0:34:56 at the time of his death the curtain in
0:34:59 the temple
0:35:00 is ripped into two is it top top to
0:35:03 bottom
0:35:04 the curtain itself symbolizing if you
0:35:06 like the the end of this
0:35:08 holy of holies this separate place
0:35:12 where god lives now that's gone
0:35:16 suggesting perhaps i don't know but
0:35:17 maybe the the accessibility of god or
0:35:20 something
0:35:20 interestingly in luke it's different
0:35:24 uh the temple um is torn but it's not
0:35:28 when jesus dies it's before
0:35:30 that if i remember rightly so that
0:35:32 significance
0:35:34 of the death is kind of subtly changed
0:35:37 subtly removed
0:35:38 that's one of those details that you
0:35:40 know those of us who want to argue that
0:35:42 there's no atonement
0:35:43 in luke and acts
0:35:46 that's one of those details we'll point
0:35:48 to yesterday
0:35:49 it's just a smile a slight difference
0:35:52 but it could be important
0:35:54 yeah i i think the the devils well not
0:35:57 the literal devil but the devil's in the
0:35:58 details
0:35:59 you really can tell us something
0:36:02 but it's something i don't understand
0:36:04 and that is for the beginning of luke
0:36:06 you get the sense that you know when
0:36:08 jesus goes into
0:36:10 the temple and he preaches that the
0:36:13 today this scroll this isaiah scroll has
0:36:16 become
0:36:16 uh you know has come true in in jesus
0:36:20 that day
0:36:21 and it's all about um you know he
0:36:23 mentions also that
0:36:24 uh how certain prophets and figures in
0:36:26 the old testament who are not part of
0:36:28 the is of israel
0:36:29 were favored by god implying that god is
0:36:32 going to go to the gentiles
0:36:35 um but in acts if i'm not mistaken it's
0:36:39 only really with peter in acts 10 acts
0:36:41 11 this cornelius episode where
0:36:44 kenilos is a roman centurion of course
0:36:47 uh a god-fearing one perhaps you know
0:36:50 sympathetic with judaism
0:36:51 but peter has a vision this
0:36:53 extraordinary vision of a
0:36:55 sheet with animals coming down from the
0:36:57 sky and
0:36:59 the lesson from that seems to be that
0:37:00 the gospel is now to go to the gentiles
0:37:03 there are no favorites
0:37:04 anymore that god is for everyone but
0:37:07 why does peter in luke's scheme of
0:37:11 things
0:37:12 seem like he's only really hearing it
0:37:14 now at that point with the
0:37:17 cornelius episode if we have all the
0:37:20 proceeding including jesus own ministry
0:37:22 which seems so
0:37:24 leaning towards suggestive and pointing
0:37:26 towards gentile inclusion in salvation
0:37:29 so what i mean
0:37:30 i i don't understand why it's such a
0:37:32 like oh my god i
0:37:33 i couldn't possibly accept this as
0:37:36 peter initially it seems to be
0:37:38 resistance and almost surprised that
0:37:40 he's not heard this kind of thing before
0:37:43 and yet it seems to be indicated
0:37:46 strongly in the gospel preceding it you
0:37:49 see what i mean
0:37:52 oh god paul um
0:37:57 you've asked like a million questions
0:38:01 and i don't even know where to start
0:38:04 um
0:38:05 Music
0:38:10 okay let me start with where you ended
0:38:13 up
0:38:13 if i heard you correctly which was
0:38:18 where was peter in all this yeah yeah
0:38:22 um so
0:38:25 like everything else that you know
0:38:28 my scholarship is predicated on which is
0:38:31 going to be what you're going to get
0:38:36 i am a historical skeptic i basically
0:38:39 say
0:38:41 you know we we affirm things from a
0:38:43 historical point of view when we have
0:38:46 the kind of evidence that we would
0:38:48 expect for you know
0:38:50 george washington or abraham lincoln or
0:38:53 you know whoever
0:38:54 right nat turner some slave in south
0:38:57 carolina
0:38:59 you know what is the evidence where do
0:39:01 we go
0:39:03 and um
0:39:07 so that's that comes to be the primary
0:39:10 sort of thing but um
0:39:16 that's not what i think most people want
0:39:18 to hear about
0:39:20 they want to hear about what i think
0:39:22 about jesus
0:39:24 or paul or
0:39:28 early christianity or something i'm not
0:39:31 sure
0:39:32 but um
0:39:36 so i'm i'm constantly shifting between
0:39:38 the historical me
0:39:40 and the theological me and i can't get
0:39:44 those two things completely together at
0:39:47 the same time
0:39:49 and i don't think that's a problem i
0:39:52 just go
0:39:53 you know if i'm writing an article for
0:39:56 a historical journal
0:40:00 i just put on my historical hat and i do
0:40:02 a historical thing
0:40:04 if i'm writing a sermon for my church i
0:40:06 put on my
0:40:07 theological hat and i my pastoral hat
0:40:11 and i do something else
0:40:13 and these things are two different
0:40:15 persona
0:40:16 for me and i don't see that as
0:40:19 schizophrenic or
0:40:20 weird or bad i just see it as the way i
0:40:24 live my life
0:40:28 so peter's sermon in acts is not
0:40:31 historical is that
0:40:33 my inferring correctly or all of the
0:40:35 sermons and acts sound alike
0:40:38 why would why would peter say the same
0:40:41 thing
0:40:43 using almost the same vocabulary
0:40:47 on you know the day of pentecost and
0:40:50 then
0:40:50 james used the same or you know some
0:40:53 other apostle used the same language
0:40:56 right on a different date i mean
0:40:59 you just take the speeches and acts just
0:41:02 take all the speeches and acts and line
0:41:04 them up
0:41:05 and they say and just say do these look
0:41:08 like they were written by 20 different
0:41:10 people
0:41:13 that reminds me of a different subject
0:41:15 which hopefully will come to
0:41:17 another time the gospel of john but the
0:41:19 speeches in john where you get jesus
0:41:21 speaking or john the baptist speaking or
0:41:23 other people speaking they all kind of
0:41:25 sound similar as if the same kind of
0:41:26 person is
0:41:27 using the same kind of language and
0:41:29 intonation and so on um
0:41:31 that's just destructive
0:41:34 i'll give you a challenge try to take a
0:41:37 bible
0:41:40 uh if you can read greek and you want to
0:41:42 take a greek new testament use that
0:41:44 if you can't just take several different
0:41:48 bibles
0:41:49 and start off in john and
0:41:53 mark with a colored pen
0:41:57 where the initial um
0:42:02 the beginning of a quotation begins
0:42:05 begin open quotation mark you know the
0:42:08 two
0:42:08 little inverted commas yeah
0:42:11 okay so note that and then go down the
0:42:14 page
0:42:16 and try to find out where the closed
0:42:19 quotation marks are
0:42:23 and they're in totally different places
0:42:25 in different bibles
0:42:27 and it's because scholars have never
0:42:29 been able to of course there were no
0:42:30 quotation marks in the ancient world
0:42:32 right and so they're a
0:42:35 medieval invention so where
0:42:39 do people modern scholars think
0:42:42 jesus stopped talking in
0:42:46 john chapter 6 right
0:42:49 because he talks for a long time
0:42:52 and some editors put the closed
0:42:54 quotation marks at one place
0:42:56 and some put them several verses later
0:42:59 and some put them several verses later
0:43:02 and some have the whole chapter in
0:43:04 jesus's voice
0:43:06 as if it was like the le the red letter
0:43:08 you know
0:43:09 edition of the new testament i didn't
0:43:12 know that i
0:43:12 must i didn't realize the modern bibles
0:43:14 differed so much
0:43:15 on uh where jesus begins and ends his
0:43:18 speeches uh
0:43:19 i'll certainly try that exercise john
0:43:21 john is the best example you just can't
0:43:23 you really can't tell from the gospel of
0:43:26 john
0:43:27 where jesus stops and the author of the
0:43:30 gospel starts
0:43:32 you just can't tell yeah yeah i was
0:43:34 aware that i think john chapter three
0:43:36 you know uh
0:43:37 so 316 that the famous verse but that
0:43:39 whole
0:43:40 which is you know is this john speaking
0:43:42 is it jesus speaking who is the
0:43:44 the speaker and it's unclear to me
0:43:45 anyway who it is um
0:43:47 so you're saying the speeches in acts
0:43:49 are um
0:43:51 at the very least filtered through the
0:43:53 vocabulary
0:43:54 and modes of expression from of luke
0:43:57 rather than
0:43:58 reportage actual you know verbatim
0:44:01 statements from
0:44:03 the guys themselves who would have said
0:44:04 these things peter john etc
0:44:07 what 40 50 years previous
0:44:10 to the actual manuscript being written
0:44:12 if the dating you suggested is
0:44:15 is reliable so how would how would luke
0:44:18 anyway know
0:44:19 what they were saying i don't even think
0:44:21 it was the expectation
0:44:23 from historians who wrote in the first
0:44:25 and second century that they were
0:44:27 supposed to reproduce everything
0:44:28 exactly um you know we have rhetorical
0:44:33 handbooks
0:44:35 where boys and sometimes girls but
0:44:38 mostly boys were taught
0:44:41 okay pretend you're alexander the great
0:44:44 trying to
0:44:44 get your troops to go forward into a
0:44:47 very dangerous
0:44:48 you know battle and gallipoli
0:44:52 uh you know now write the speech
0:44:55 memorize it and present it to the rest
0:44:58 of the class
0:44:59 and that's what you did that day that
0:45:02 was your education
0:45:05 um and so i just imagine that uh
0:45:08 and when when historians talk about in
0:45:11 the ancient world talk about this
0:45:13 they also do the same thing thucydides
0:45:16 talks
0:45:17 quite explicitly about how reliable his
0:45:19 speeches are now sometimes he
0:45:21 exaggerates and we can tell because
0:45:23 we go now there's you're not
0:45:26 anachronistic nobody could have thought
0:45:28 of that in the year
0:45:29 you know 360.
0:45:32 but you know we but we still analyze
0:45:36 them
0:45:38 but we we know the thucydides
0:45:41 cons thought that he was writing his own
0:45:45 speeches
0:45:47 now he was supposed to write them as if
0:45:51 helen of troy had actually said this
0:45:56 so these are imaginative constructions
0:45:59 based on what the author
0:46:01 expected that person helen of troy to
0:46:03 say on that occasion
0:46:05 given the circumstances at that time it
0:46:08 wasn't uh oh let me
0:46:10 let me get this uh transcripts of her
0:46:12 words and uh you know
0:46:14 put it in my text no it was what she
0:46:17 should have said or would have said in
0:46:18 that context exactly
0:46:20 you always wrote what should someone
0:46:22 have said
0:46:23 now this is what's um
0:46:25 Music
0:46:27 baffled me for years about the acts of
0:46:30 the apostles
0:46:32 are paul's three different descriptions
0:46:36 of his so-called conversion of his call
0:46:40 um why did the author of acts
0:46:46 not edit two of these out
0:46:50 um why did the author of acts not try to
0:46:53 harmonize them
0:46:58 just absolute contradictions
0:47:02 why would the author of acts want to
0:47:04 present paul
0:47:06 as so blatantly contradicting himself
0:47:12 three different times in roman courts
0:47:14 that just doesn't make any sense to me
0:47:17 hmm that's a good point and that's one
0:47:21 of the mysteries of history
0:47:22 we don't know of course we can't ask
0:47:24 luke why he did that
0:47:26 um uh because he on one of the occasions
0:47:29 paul
0:47:30 um sees something and other people hear
0:47:32 something and then
0:47:33 they pour here something and that it did
0:47:35 there are contradictions
0:47:37 so we're not quite sure exactly what
0:47:39 happened um
0:47:41 in any other case but any any theories
0:47:43 as to why he included
0:47:44 three accounts discrepancy mutually
0:47:47 contradictory accounts
0:47:48 maybe he's not as great a historian as
0:47:50 we would hope he would be
0:47:52 i i just don't that that's the thing i
0:47:55 just don't know i mean
0:47:56 i respect the writer of luke and axe as
0:47:59 a writer
0:48:00 i think he was a brilliant first century
0:48:03 writer
0:48:04 um the greek is
0:48:07 some of the best greek we have in the
0:48:09 bible um
0:48:11 and uh you know it's
0:48:14 it's very uh
0:48:18 the german term bildung um
0:48:22 educated it's very educated
0:48:26 um but why he would include those three
0:48:31 stories and
0:48:32 i am confused about and
0:48:35 the other thing that confuses me is
0:48:37 given that we we understand or we're
0:48:39 told that
0:48:40 luke knew paul they were companions and
0:48:42 indeed halfway through luke
0:48:44 luke suddenly changes from a third
0:48:47 person accounts
0:48:48 they to we a first person account we
0:48:51 meaning
0:48:51 the author and paul and yet his
0:48:54 uh chronology of paul's life his
0:48:57 movements
0:48:58 around the ancient world but also his
0:49:00 theology paul's understanding of
0:49:02 salvation of jesus is often quite
0:49:05 different from what we
0:49:06 read in the authentic letters the seven
0:49:09 authentic letters in the new testament
0:49:11 so but did did luke know paul the
0:49:13 historical paul or was that just a kind
0:49:15 of a
0:49:15 when he says we is that kind of a
0:49:17 literary device to kind of
0:49:19 make us believe that he knew him but
0:49:21 didn't
0:49:23 well i just i i basically say
0:49:26 uh whoever wrote luke x was not luke
0:49:30 the historical luke right who could have
0:49:32 known paul
0:49:34 and probably didn't know paul yeah i
0:49:36 don't think the author who wrote luke
0:49:38 and acts
0:49:39 knew paul at all i don't think he knew
0:49:42 paul's letters
0:49:44 i don't know that he even knew that paul
0:49:46 wrote letters because
0:49:47 there's just no reference to it
0:49:51 paul he just has a totally different
0:49:53 conception of paul
0:49:55 than paul had of himself i think you can
0:49:57 safely say
0:50:00 um as far as who it was
0:50:03 i just don't think we can have any clue
0:50:06 it
0:50:07 like i say it wasn't the historical luke
0:50:10 who was
0:50:10 maybe a companion of paul and maybe knew
0:50:14 paul or other people like that first
0:50:16 generation
0:50:17 i don't think whoever wrote luke axe was
0:50:19 that person
0:50:21 but who it was
0:50:26 no because as you say that luke is uh
0:50:29 the writer is a very educated person
0:50:31 that greek is very good
0:50:33 so you'd expect them to take similar
0:50:35 care with their with their sources and
0:50:36 their accounts and yeah as you say
0:50:38 his understanding of paul's life
0:50:41 movements theology
0:50:42 is so uh at variance with what we know
0:50:45 of the historical paul that is
0:50:47 it doesn't add up so yeah what you're
0:50:49 saying
0:50:51 uh kind of makes sense
0:50:54 i think though we also may need to think
0:50:56 about
0:50:57 just the process of transmission
0:51:02 luke may have been discriminated against
0:51:07 as a document uh or
0:51:10 luke acts as a two-volume document
0:51:13 um what if um
0:51:16 Music
0:51:17 some of the surprises that we have
0:51:21 are the result of
0:51:25 a spotty uh history of transmission
0:51:29 Music
0:51:34 um
0:51:37 i mean i just don't know i just i think
0:51:39 that
0:51:40 it's a very complicated issue it's even
0:51:43 one of the things i keep thinking is
0:51:44 complicated is why did they split up
0:51:46 luke and axe in the first place in the
0:51:49 canon
0:51:50 you know why didn't they keep them
0:51:52 together
0:51:54 um
0:51:58 but anyway i just find luke and axe
0:52:03 a fascinating never-ending problem
0:52:06 it does throw up more questions than
0:52:08 answers and the more you look into it
0:52:10 the kind of raises even more questions
0:52:11 and
0:52:12 um but um perhaps we'll draw it to a
0:52:15 close
0:52:16 there but i i i hope this has been of
0:52:18 interest to
0:52:19 uh viewers as it has been to me um
0:52:22 and uh if you want to read more on the
0:52:24 the background to this whole question
0:52:26 and on the whole new testament do uh get
0:52:29 yourself a copy of new testament history
0:52:31 and literature
0:52:32 by del martin published by yale
0:52:35 university press it's available on
0:52:37 amazon if i'm allowed to say amazon and
0:52:40 very very interesting indeed so thank
0:52:42 you very much dale for your time
0:52:45 and um before we end i i'm hoping we can
0:52:49 come back another time to do to talk
0:52:51 about the gospel of john
0:52:52 which is thank you is such a significant
0:52:56 gospel for
0:52:57 for the church uh i i and again there
0:53:00 are more surprises perhaps
0:53:02 in store all over the place too many
0:53:05 problems
0:53:07 yeah but nevertheless it's worth talking
0:53:08 about so um
0:53:10 thank you very much dale for your time
0:53:13 and we look forward to your game thank
0:53:17 you