Wednesday, February 17, 2016

hear nothing, see nothing, know nothing

Pitch black dark predawn, ship arriving in the Bay and sailing briskly by my porch couple minutes later, two tugs await her at the turn north toward the Port. Latest Vessel Schedule was 2 Feb, can’t reliably tell what ship so guessing Forest Panama 442x69 because this old schedule had her ETA yesterday and nothing due in today. A guess is as good as a mile, or something.

Nice on the porch, clear sky, loaded with planets and stars. Love having this south outlook across St. Andrews Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, unobstructed view of the sky. Miss about the old place just one thing: slipping down to MLP from time to time, haven’t been able to adapt porch, or elevator down to park next door, as MLP replacement. 

Yesterday was Bible Seminar, start-up for the Lent Term. Beginning something new I always say too much by way of introduction. The first day, and those present wanted to continue next time, instead of plowing serially through Luke chapter by chapter as we did Mark -- after prayer, opened with my too long intro, then chased from here and there into Luke, Isaiah, Malachi, Mark, looking to form our own tentative opinions of whether the modern Bible criticism school has been unobservant and too assuming these past couple hundred years with a view of Luke as having and conveying what Bible scholars call a low Christology. Looking at what Gabriel said to Zechariah v. Mary; what Zechariah sang v. what Isaiah wrote; what Luke has Jesus say in a story v. what Mark has Jesus say in the same story Lord to specificially God; Luke mingling κύριος from the Greek Septuagint where the Hebrew Bible says YHWH and importing the same verse but κύριος referring to Jesus or deliberately ambiguous. Once we “get it” we can resume our usual practice of plowing through chapter after chapter but alert to Luke’s possibly subtle high Christology. 

Or we can explore an idea that Q is an erroneous hypothesis, that Luke actually had Matthew as a source, an almost heretical notion in modern NT study; and watch for Q instances as we go along and see what we think. Of many fun and interesting possibilities in studying the gospels, one is approaching each in a totally different way; another is testing existing hypotheses such as Q. A scholar I was just reading doubts Q, thinks Luke used Matthew. My tentative problem with that at this point is two-fold. First, considering how long for Matthew to get not just written but into circulation: how much later does that have to make Luke and Acts; and incidentally, what might that do to credibility of the “we” participant in Acts accounts of travels with Paul? Second, difference in Matthew’s and Luke’s beatitudes v. the standard test that the simplest came first. But then what about Luke’s “woes”? IDK, I like the no-Q theory, but at eighty I’ve known Q too long to give it up easily.

Oh WTH, nevermind, IDK.  Shultz, I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing, nothing.

No tabasco chicken okra sausage oyster gumbo for supper, and to daimonion failed to show up in dreams.  

Sunset last evening 20160216:

Mill whistle: 0700 sharp

Thos+ slogging deeper and deeper into the muck of +Time+

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.