things I have learned tonight

  1. sometimes, the thing that seems selfish is necessary.
  2. rare birds are worth pursuing.
  3. it doesn’t always matter whether people understand.
  4. on reading Luke through, one wonders why the documentary hypothesis took so long.
  5. The start of Luke is wonderfully gracious. As pain and conflict increase, it gets wordier, more didactic and tries harder to explain. (‘all those with ears…’)
  6. when the last lemon is gone, wasabi saves the day (or at least the tuna salad).

5 thoughts on “things I have learned tonight

  1. Cryptic yet probably plainly obvious.

    I have never noticed that about Luke before, I’ll give it another read and look for the change in pace/language.

  2. What’s the documentary hypothesis?

    I adore the beginning of Luke, the rest of it, less so. I’m intrigued by your discovery.

  3. I wouldn’t claim ‘discovery’ — just noticing in fact (in impact, in emotion…) what I should have known.

    The documentary hypothesis — technically ‘the two-documentary hypothesis’ or ‘the two source hypothesis’ — is the almost universally accepted theory as to how the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) got to be the way they are.

    Basically,

    we assume that:
    Mark comes first and is shortest.
    Matthew and Mark both include most of Mark, and add other bits.

    Some of the bits are common to both of them.
    Some of the bits are distinct to each.

    Therefore, it is assumed that Matthew and Luke had access to two of the same sources when they were writing their gospels: Mark’s Gospel, and an other source (called Q, for the German word for source: Quelle (such creative folk, biblical scholars…)).

    They each also had material of their own (Let’s call Luke’s bit L and Matthew’s bit M.)

    So: Luke = Mark + Q + L
    Matthew = Mark + Q + M

    The game gets interesting when you pay attention to stories that clearly come from Q, but are told slightly differently by Luke and Matthew. So, you get to ask: why did Luke tell it this way? …put it here in the narrative? etc. And of course, you can ask the same questions of how they use the stories from Mark.

    If you haven’t come across this before, try comparing the healing of the paralytic in each. The differences don’t seem huge, but they do show up the texual variations (and thus the hypothetical Q) very nicely.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s