Luke 11:49 - Christ Quoting Who?

[Ron Beron]

Ron,

You asked:

"Possible" can encompass the extremely unlikely, making it difficult to say that something like this is "impossible." But for all practical purposes, no, I don't think it's realistically possible; or to put it more formally, I don't think it is plausible. See my reply to cobalt-70 for an explanation of why I don't think this is plausible.

I understand your point very well and at some level I agree, but again Jesus using the term "God's Wisdom" or "Wisdom of God" is unusual. What I believe may have happened is a later redactor added the term to show Jesus has a speaker of God's wisdom, i.e., His Logos.

[ebeddoulos]

ebeddoulos,

Your conclusion, frankly, is based on a lack of serious study and even a lack of attention to the sources you do quote.

Your conclusions, frankly, is built on a foundation of ad hominem upon which is erected a structure of intellectual flatulence. Just an FYI, in case you cannot tell, calling me a liar is not a good way to get on my pleasant side.

You did not wander through commentaries in some collection you have somewhere.

In actuality, all of my quotations came from my collection. Part of my collection is generically called “Bible Study Software”. I happen to use e-Sword. Over the past decade I have acquired a couple of hundred Bibles, Commentaries, Dictionaries, etc. in the e-sword format. Just an FYI, you can acquire a free copy of e-Sword at e-Sword.net. Though it is free, I’m sure Rick Meyers would appreciate a donation. Additional modules can be had at Bible Support.com and eStudySource.com. A goodly number of my e-sword modules came from these or similar sources.

The other part of my collection, as the picture above partially attests, is a modest collection of religious books. The bookshelf on the left contains nothing but Bibles. The bookshelf on the right is one of two that is full of commentaries, dictionaries, handbooks and other Bible related volumes. Among the volumes you will find such names as Lightfoot, Barnhouse, Elwell, Henry, Kiel &Delitzsch, Walwoord & Zuch, etc., … oh … and even Falwell. Probably nothing compared to your personal collection seeing how you are a “biblical scholar by professional, academic training” and all. However, humble though it is, it was through my modest collection that I wandered.

In the future, if you want a respectful and civil dialog, I would highly suggest that you refrain from ever calling me a liar again. For some strange reason, it just does not sit well with me.

Your quotations all came from online sources, generally very old commentaries in the public domain. There is not one contemporary exegetical commentary represented in your quotations.

commentary (kŏm'ən-tĕr'ē)

n., pl., -ies.

1 A series of explanations or interpretations.

2 An expository treatise or series of annotations; an exegesis. Often used in the plural.

3 An apt explanation or illustration: a scandal that is a sad commentary on national politics.

A personal narrative; a memoir. Often used in the plural.

I did pull that from online source; i.e., American Heritage Dictionary but I added the emphasis. Since a commentary by definition is an exegesis, it would appear that your primary complaint is that some of the commentaries in my collection are old? So am I. I deal with it. Someday you will, too.

I had to look up this work, as I have never heard of it or of its authors (and I am a biblical scholar by professional, academic training).

Nice! You cover your ignorance, i.e., lack of knowledge, with an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. I am so impressed! But as my grandchildren say … “NOT!”

Still, these writers agree with me: Jesus was not quoting from a long-lost or suppressed book of scripture, or even quoting a particular statement from any text at all. He was attributing to God's wisdom a statement that represents the truth reflected in several OT texts (which were and are in the canon).

Do they? See below.

Yes, but Lightfoot is not suggesting in any way that Jesus was quoting or paraphrasing the Targum. Lightfoot is suggesting that "the wisdom of God said" is an introductory form similar to "the rule of judgment answered and said" which is found in the Targum quotation he gives. That is, both expressions are not introducing a literal quotation from some preexisting text or reporting someone's actual words; the wording is figurative and means that what follows is consistent with God's wisdom (in Luke) or the rule of judgment (in the Targum). Thus, Lightfoot agrees with me that Jesus is not quoting an earlier text.

So close and yet so far away. I am sure that a biblical scholar of your stature knows that the Targum is an authoritative translation of the Hebrew Scriptures which exhibit a midrashic interpretation. Again I quote Lightfoot:

• “This form of speaking agreeth well enough with that so much in use, the rule of judgment saith. Amongst numberless instances, take that of the Targumist; …”

Just as a Targumist would quote and interpret the Tanakh, so is Jesus quoting and interpreting a work he considers to be authoritative.

Excuse me, but you left out of your quotation from the Pulpit Commentary the explanation it actually favored:
"Putting aside all these, it seems best to consider the expression simply as a solemn utterance of the Lord, in which he identifies himself with the 'Wisdom of God.'"
So there is another work that concludes that Jesus was not quoting an earlier text.

With what part did you have difficulty? Was it my phrase “several speculative alternatives” or was it my sentence “None were judged satisfactory”? The point was that the commentator admitted that his opinion was not the only viable option.

Here again, you present a selective quotation and avoid the author's statement in which he gives his own view:
"...the sense may be here, that the infinite wisdom of God said within himself, determined in his own breast, to do what follows. But I rather think that Christ is intended, who, as God, is the essential wisdom of God; and, as man and mediator, has the spirit of wisdom resting on him, and the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hid in him...."
That is, Gill thinks that Christ is speaking of what he himself, as the wisdom of God, said. Once again, the author you quote does not think that Jesus was quoting from an earlier text.

And you skirt the final paragraphs, wherein Gill sums it up thusly:

• “Some have thought, that some book, under the name of "The Wisdom of God", is here cited, which had in it the following words,
  I will send them prophets and apostles; which, in Matthew, are called prophets, wise men, and Scribes; and by whom are meant the apostles of Christ, and the ministers of the Gospel. The Persic version reads, "lo, I send to you", as in Mat 23:34,
  and some of them they shall slay and persecute; some of them they shall put to death, and others they shall persecute from one place to another; See Gill on Mat 23:34.”

It is my argument that “some book, under the name of "The Wisdom of God", is here cited” makes for a very good summation.

Which tells us nothing.

It tells us that “The source of this quotation is unknown.”

So of the five secondary sources that you quoted, four of them offer an explanation, and of those four, all of them agree that Jesus was not quoting a specific earlier text.

They do?

• “Among the explanations the best is that which represents Jesus as quoting the trend or tenor of several prophecies” – M&P
  “a quotation of the Lord"s from a lost apocryphal book of that name” – Pulpit Commentary
  “Some have thought, that some book, under the name of "The Wisdom of God", is here cited” – Gill
  “The source of this quotation is unknown.” – ISV

Perhaps you have a different definition for “quoting”, “quotation” or “cited”. Pray tell. Share it with us.

What were you thinking when you read these comments on the verse?

Perhaps you will get it if I say it again:

• “In spite of Rob Bowman’s best machinations, Jesus is quoting but from where is anybody’s guess.”

Four of the five secondary sources you quoted disagree with you. The fifth has no explanation at all.

I suggest you do a recount. By my count it is five to zip in my favor.

Is this your evidence?

Yes, Mr. “I am a biblical scholar by professional, academic training” and it is more than enough.

[Vance]

Your conclusions, frankly, is built on a foundation of ad hominem upon which is erected a structure of intellectual flatulence.

. . .

Nice! You cover your ignorance, i.e., lack of knowledge, with an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. I am so impressed! But as my grandchildren say … “NOT!”

PSSST!

Just so you know, logic isn't Bowman's forte.

But hey, he is a biblical scholar by professional, academic training.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Vance

[volgadon]

So close and yet so far away. I am sure that a biblical scholar of your stature knows that the Targum is an authoritative translation of the Hebrew Scriptures which exhibit a midrashic interpretation. Again I quote Lightfoot:

“This form of speaking agreeth well enough with that so much in use, the rule of judgment saith. Amongst numberless instances, take that of the Targumist; …”

Just as a Targumist would quote and interpret the Tanakh, so is Jesus quoting and interpreting a work he considers to be authoritative.

Targum isn't an authoritative translation. Targum is a method of interpreting the text, frequently adding material which is not in the text. The earlier practice was to translate each reading spontaneously in the synagogue, not read from a text.

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

If you wandered through your collection of commentaries, how is it that you only quoted ones that can be found online? You quoted four very old commentaries, the most recent dating to 1916 I believe, and a marginal note from the ISV. All five of these sources happen to be free online and some of them are also found in Bible software programs.

The whole point of your previous post was to argue that I disagreed with all of the scholarly sources you found as you "wandered through your collection." Your claim was that I was "marching to my own drummer" and that your quotations showed this to be so. It was therefore appropriate for me to point out that your sources don't reflect a real contemporary collection of commentaries on Luke but the kind of dated and generally non-academic commentaries that are so old as to be in the public domain and therefore freely available online. Where are the serious exegetical commentaries on Luke by such contemporary scholars as Darrell Bock, Craig Evans, Joseph Fitzmyer, I. Howard Marshall, John Nolland, or Robert Stein? If you're going to play the game of arguing that someone's view is out of step with biblical scholarship, you should be expected to be called on the carpet if you don't make your case.

By the way, I did not call you a liar. I disputed what you said, but that doesn't mean I was accusing you of lying. And perhaps you did in some sense wander through your collection, but your quotations all came from online sources.

My position was and is that Luke 11:49 was not reporting that Jesus quoted from a specific earlier text. When McGarvey and Pendleton say that Jesus was "quoting the trend or tenor of several prophecies," they are making it clear that Jesus was not quoting from one specific text. The issue here is not the word quoting; it is what "quoting" means in this context. M&P agree with me: this "quotation" does not come from a specific text, but is a quotation that Jesus attributed to "the wisdom of God" and that expressed the tenor of several OT prophecies. Likewise the Pulpit Commentary and Gill agree that Jesus is not quoting a specific earlier text, although they favors the view that "the wisdom of God" in Luke 11:49 refers to Jesus himself. So these three sources that you quoted clearly disagree with the idea that Jesus was quoting an earlier specific text. I'll not bother discussing the Lightfoot quotation because I think (no disrespect intended) that you simply don't understand what he was saying.

I never claimed that no one in history has ever thought Jesus was quoting from one specific text. Of course, some have thought so. But many have thought he wasn't, and most scholars today don't think Jesus was quoting from a specific text. I happen to be one of them. I am not "marching to my own drummer" in this opinion; I am actually in agreement with the majority of contemporary biblical scholars who have commented on the question.

[volgadon]

The Targum Lamentations quote also doesn't indicate a prior text, it is rather exploring a verse as a dialogue between Jeremiah and Heaven. Jeremiah wants to know why Israel is suffering so. Justice personified retorts that "Is it fitting to murder in the house of the Sanctuary of the Lord the

priest and the prophet, as you murdered Zechariah the son of Iddo, the high priest and faithful prophet, in the House of the Sanctuary of the Lord on the Day of Atonement, because he admonished you not to do that which was evil before the Lord?"

[mfbukowski]

I am always highly impressed by arguments from authority, especially when the authority quoted is the speaker himself.

Heavy stuff.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

I am always highly impressed by arguments from authority, especially when the authority quoted is the speaker himself.

Heavy stuff.

I am frankly less than impressed by criticisms that nibble at the periphery of an argument and never engage the heart and substance of the argument itself. I know you don't like my "style" but then, that feeling is mutual. How about we talk about the substantial issues and try to ignore each other's stylistic idiosyncrasies?

What you are calling an argument from authority was not an argument in defense of my position or viewpoint on the issue. It was a parenthetical remark regarding the obscurity of one of the commentaries that was cited. The observation was made in passing, I made nothing of it so far as the issue at hand was concerned, and I moved on immediately to the substance of what the commentary said--which I showed happens to agree with my position!

[ebeddoulos]

If you wandered through your collection of commentaries, how is it that you only quoted ones that can be found online? You quoted four very old commentaries, the most recent dating to 1916 I believe, and a marginal note from the ISV. All five of these sources happen to be free online and some of them are also found in Bible software programs.

If?

You still have the temerity to question my veracity? You really are a piece of work, aren’t you? Just because they “happen” to be online does not mean that they are not in my collection. Nor does it give you permission to call me a liar. Notice how I do not disparage your integrity when I inform you that you are mistaken about the publication dates: The Pulpit Commentary was published in 1985. Lightfoot’s Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica was published as recently as 1989. Both were published by Hendrikson. The following was taken today of my copy of Lightfoot, just to show you how mistaken you are.

My copy of John Gill’s Commentary was updated for e-Sword v.9.0 on 4-2-2009. IIRC, I believe I acquired it within a few days of the update.

I come by my copy of McGarvey&Pendleton Commentary for e-Sword in June of this year when it was submitted to BibleSupport.com. According to the description, “The commentary on Acts is especially good. It is still used as the text for a graduate level course on the book of Acts at Harding graduate school.”

The ISV Bible and Commentary Notes is so new that it is still a work in progress. The New Testament with Psalms & Proverbs can be purchased at Barnes&Noble. It will be available in completed form to include the Old Testament sometime next year.

By the way, I did not call you a liar. I disputed what you said, but that doesn't mean I was accusing you of lying. And perhaps you did in some sense wander through your collection, but your quotations all came from online sources.

The H-E-double-toothpicks you didn’t call me a liar. That's pure bull. And you are still doing so. You went far beyond a mere disputation and you know it:

I wandered through the commentaries in my collection and what follows is what I found.”

You did not wander through commentaries in some collection you have somewhere. Your quotations all came from online sources, generally very old commentaries in the public domain.

If you wandered through your collection of commentaries, how is it that you only quoted ones that can be found online?

As for the rest of your boloney, I stand by me previous response, repeated below:

• “Among the explanations the best is that which represents Jesus as quoting the trend or tenor of several prophecies” – M&P
  “a quotation of the Lord"s from a lost apocryphal book of that name” – Pulpit Commentary
  “Some have thought, that some book, under the name of "The Wisdom of God", is here cited” – Gill
  “The source of this quotation is unknown.” – ISV

[KevinG]

I am frankly less than impressed by criticisms that nibble at the periphery of an argument and never engage the heart and substance of the argument itself.

Wow. Just wow. You would do well to turn that philosophy upon your own arguments and web site.

[Rob Bowman]

Ebed,

You wrote:

If?

You still have the temerity to question my veracity?

I apologize for leaving open this misunderstanding. I did not intend to question your veracity, but I was asking a serious question, which you have not answered. But I withdraw the question because it is obvious we are getting nowhere.

You wrote:

Just because they “happen” to be online does not mean that they are not in my collection. Nor does it give you permission to call me a liar.

I didn't call you a liar!

You wrote:

Notice how I do not disparage your integrity when I inform you that you are mistaken about the publication dates: The Pulpit Commentary was published in 1985. Lightfoot’s Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica was published as recently as 1989. Both were published by Hendrikson. The following was taken today of my copy of Lightfoot, just to show you how mistaken you are.

The point I was making had nothing to do with how recently the books have been reprinted, which is what these publication dates you give mean. John Lighthood died in 1675, for goodness' sake! The Pulpit Commentary was first published in the nineteenth century. John Gill died in 1771. McGarvey and Pendleton's commentary was first published in 1916, if I recall correctly.

You wrote:

The H-E-double-toothpicks you didn’t call me a liar. That's pure bull. And you are still doing so. You went far beyond a mere disputation and you know it:

I know what I said, and I did not call you a liar. I will say now, however, that you are behaving in a boorish fashion.

You wrote:

As for the rest of your boloney, I stand by me previous response, repeated below:

• “Among the explanations the best is that which represents Jesus as quoting the trend or tenor of several prophecies” – M&P
  “a quotation of the Lord"s from a lost apocryphal book of that name” – Pulpit Commentary
  “Some have thought, that some book, under the name of "The Wisdom of God", is here cited” – Gill
  “The source of this quotation is unknown.” – ISV

It was a mistake on my part to try to explain to you why you have misunderstood these statements (all except the last). I should have let you shoot your mouth off about how I supposedly was "marching to my own drummer" and assumed that those who understand the issues would also understand why your use of these statements were mistaken. I have tried to explain it to you twice, and considering all of the abuse you have hurled at me, I have been pretty patient. I'll drop my efforts to reason with you, since they appear to be unwanted. And again, I apologize for the misperception my wording allowed that I was calling your truthfulness into question.

[ebeddoulos]

I apologize for leaving open this misunderstanding. I did not intend to question your veracity ...

I will say now, however, that you are behaving in a boorish fashion ...

And again, I apologize for the misperception my wording allowed that I was calling your truthfulness into question.

I accept your apology with the same graciousness with which it was offered.

[ebeddoulos]

Edited September 2, 2011 by ebeddoulos

[Calm]

The earlier practice was to translate each reading spontaneously in the synagogue, not read from a text.

How long were the readings? Edited September 2, 2011 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

How long were the readings?

We don't know exactly, since the ancient synagogue had a tri-annual schedule for reading the Pentateuch (plus portions from the Prophets and Hagiographa) as opposed to the current annual schedule. Services though weren't short as there were many prayers and expositions, sermons and liturgical hymns. There would certainly have been local variations as well.

Edited September 2, 2011 by volgadon

[Vance]

I am frankly less than impressed by criticisms that nibble at the periphery of an argument and never engage the heart and substance of the argument itself.

Have you ever thought that that might be why few people here are impressed with your arguments?

[mfbukowski]

I accept your apology with the same graciousness with which it was offered.

But of course note that the objections you raised were lost in diversionary tactics.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

But of course note that the objections you raised were lost in diversionary tactics.

CFR. That is, I am calling for you to identify at least two objections that ebeddoulos raised that "were lost in diversionary tactics."

Since you say "of course," these should be obvious and easy for you to cite.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

CFR. That is, I am calling for you to identify at least two objections that ebeddoulos raised that "were lost in diversionary tactics."

Since you say "of course," these should be obvious and easy for you to cite.

Nah, no time to do that, maybe I was wrong. I was going on previous experience. I'll withdraw it and say I was mistaken until Ebed can confirm it.

I would have posted earlier but my email notification is down and I didn't notice your reply.

Edited September 2, 2011 by mfbukowski