11-09-2013, 01:15 AM
"1) Luke wrote in chronological order"
This is your assumption. "Orderly account" does not necessarily mean chronological. There are counterexamples to this assumption in Luke's story (John baptizing Jesus after being imprisoned?). Luke's style (which I really love) in his Gospel is at places "train of thought" or theme rather than chronology. The text does not force chronology in this part of chapter 7, rather an insertion story related to the predeceeding sentences (my view of course, I'm not trying to force it on you, and I will not say "how can you not see it").
Both versions (Luke's feast being the same or a separate account of anointing) are possible (no contradiction), the version that it is the same account is simpler.
Yes, I have read your earlier statement about Shimun being a popular name, before writing what I think. Stating it twice or "reminding" does not make it a stronger argument.
With peace,
Jerzy
This is your assumption. "Orderly account" does not necessarily mean chronological. There are counterexamples to this assumption in Luke's story (John baptizing Jesus after being imprisoned?). Luke's style (which I really love) in his Gospel is at places "train of thought" or theme rather than chronology. The text does not force chronology in this part of chapter 7, rather an insertion story related to the predeceeding sentences (my view of course, I'm not trying to force it on you, and I will not say "how can you not see it").
Both versions (Luke's feast being the same or a separate account of anointing) are possible (no contradiction), the version that it is the same account is simpler.
Yes, I have read your earlier statement about Shimun being a popular name, before writing what I think. Stating it twice or "reminding" does not make it a stronger argument.
With peace,
Jerzy