Marshall, University of Toronto.

Please  to support the site, view it without ads, and get bonus stuff!

At (Rutgers University Dept of Religion) Mahlon H.

But then again, even in that case, the crowd members would have been engaging in some wishful thinking. The prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 states that the king comes to Jerusalem "GENTLE and riding on a donkey" - not to make war, but to "proclaim peace to the nations" (Zech. 9:10b). Seditious in Roman eyes, true enough; but no indicator of Zealot-like military aspirations. Who would lead a military charge on a baby donkey?

Smith's  companion to the historical study of Christian texts.

Jenks, FaithFutures Foundation.

1) It portrays Pilate as "merely acquiescent to a shouting crowd." Under our scenario, however, the crowd is a paid one - and Pilate knows it. Let's see how this works out exegetically, using Matthew as a framework, and pieces from Luke and John that add to the picture (Mark adds nothing that is not repeated elsewhere):

"Be quiet," demands Jesus sharply. Then he commands the demon, "Come out of him!"

The Sanhedrin trials are not the only subject of skeptical scrutiny in the trial accounts. Pilate himself comes under the microscope as well - but in order to answer questions about what Pilate was up to in the Gospels, there are other questions that must be dealt with first.

Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson, pp. 191-214

Parsons, Preaching This Week, , 2016.

If that is so, one wonders where Cohn gets off accusing the evangelists of fabricating stories! On the other hand, Cohn IS willing to grant the picture of Caiaphas as one politically inclined, prudent, and with an instinct for self-preservation - which, we may point out, is exactly how he appears in the Gospels.

Helmut Koester comments on the provenance of Q (, p. 164):

Luke 11:1-13, then, contains both intriguing similarities with and intriguing differences from Hermogenes' elaboration of the chreia. After an introduction that evokes an image of Jesus as an authoritative speaker, Jesus recites an abbreviated form of the Lord's Prayer to his disciples. Immediately after this recitation, Jesus presents an argument from analogy that depicts relationships among friends. Jesus then appends this analogy with an authoritative objection that asserts that a friend gives bread to his friend at midnight not because of friendship but because of the petitioner's willingness to ask shamelessly for another person's needs. After this parable, Jesus presents an enthymemic rationale for praying to God in the petitionary manner manifest in the Lord's Prayer. After the rationale, Jesus presents two arguments from comparison with earthly fathers and a conclusion that summarizes how much more their heavenly Father is able to give than earthly fathers.

7 Apr 2013. . Read this chapter .

2) Any argument based merely on the rules of the Mishnah Sanhedrin hangs by a gossamer thread. There is simply no reason to doubt the historicity of the trial on this account.

In our congregations it's difficult to avoid measuring success."

In a context where a rhetor has generated the result that extends beyond inductive-deductive reasoning, the new insight reduces the importance of the result of the deductive reasoning and creates a major inference that invites elaboration. One may naturally find other places in the Gospel of Luke that elaborate various results of the abductive reasoning (that is, "greater" behaviors in humans produced by the Holy Spirit in them). Willi Braun's analysis of Luke 14 exhibits people (including Jesus) distributing benefactions in a manner "greater" than conventional human action. This elaboration of the abductive reasoning emphasizes that the presence of the Holy Spirit in humans can produce "greater" giving than most earthly persons enact. Luke 14:11 characterizes this mode of giving beyond conventional social practice as "lowering oneself and being exalted." Thus, one lowers oneself to give, much as one lowers oneself to be forgiven. Once again, giving and forgiving intertwine in the enthymemic texture of Luke. Luke 14:12-24 elaborates the lowering by giving boldly to the poor, maimed, lame, and blind; the story of Zaccheus (19:1-10) shows how "giving" brings "salvation"; and Luke 18:13-14 displays how asking forgiveness in a position of lowering oneself (rather than asking in a position one may consider to bolster one's request, that is, having forgiven the debt of another; 11:4) puts one in a position to receive forgiveness from God. Lowering oneself either to give or to ask for forgiveness brings exaltation in the enthymemic texture of the Gospel of Luke. [[213]]

8 Apr 2013. . Read this chapter .

There can be no doubt, then, that the units in Luke 11:5-13 elaborate aspects of the Lord's Prayer. But this elaboration differs in significant respects from Hermogenean elaboration. In Hermogenean elaboration, a well-articulated rationale occurs immediately after the chreia or maxim, then the argumentation moves on to the contrary, to analogy, to example, to authoritative judgment, and finally, to an exhortative conclusion. In Luke 11:1-13, the rationale occurs only after an initial argument from analogy with an objection. Then, after two arguments from comparison, the conclusion ends with an if-(then) statement that is enthymemic in nature. In Luke, enthymemic discourse occurs already in the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, and it continues into the conclusion. In the Hermogenean elaboration, in contrast, enthymemic discourse has its primary function immediately after the recitation of the chreia or maxim. In addition, Luke 11:1-13 is part of a longer text, namely the entire Gospel of Luke. The enthymemes throughout the unit create an enthymemic network that extends into various portions of the Gospel. An enthymeme in the prayer itself creates a dynamic interaction between forgiving and giving. Then a surprise emerges in the conclusion of the elaboration when Jesus says the heavenly Father gives the Holy Spirit. At this point, the elaboration moves decisively beyond inductive-deductive reasoning characteristic of conventional social, cultural, and ideological reasoning into a mode of abductive reasoning that generates special ways of thinking and acting. [[214]]