This week I have been building a case for understanding the Gospel of Luke in a particular way. My thesis is that Luke’s Gospel is an intentionally literary act the purpose of which is to generate a response in the reader. That response is, specifically, to move the reader to a deeper participation in the “truth” of Jesus. That movement is from a reliance or insistence upon the “facts” of Christianity to a participation in Christ as part of a sharing, committed community.
Luke’s story unfolds between two bookend pieces: the Dedication to Theophilus and the Road to Emmaus. The dedication speaks of a man who has been instructed in “all these things” related to the story of Jesus. But Luke intends to go beyond this to the “truth”. That truth is finally revealed at the conclusion of chapter 24 verse 35. Here the two men retell how they encountered Jesus on the road and their hearts burned within them. And they reveal how Jesus made himself known to them “in the breaking of the bread.” The “truth” of Luke’s story is this: that Jesus’ continuing presence in the community is not principally a function of knowledge, history, creed or any of the “things” that people prioritize about Jesus. Jesus is present in the communal gathering of those whose hearts burn for the things Christ’s heart burned for—those concerns made evident in the other 23 chapters of the Gospel.
Did the original text end at this point? To my knowledge there is no ancient manuscript that ends with verse 35. But I wish there were. What follows these poignant words are another seventeen verses. These verses tell of a more conventional appearance story. Verse 36: “As they were saying this Jesus himself came and stood among them and they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a ghost.”
Now does this make any sense at all? I do not mean the appearance as such, I mean the appearance in the context of the rest of the story. In other words, we have just had this scene of great poignancy where the disciples declare, without question or doubt, that Jesus is risen. The two men relate their experience, an experience of inner fire and of recognizing the risen Jesus. They have not been traumatized at all by the circumstance of Jesus’ “vanishing from their sight”.
So why, suddenly, are they surprised and fearful to see Jesus? It makes no sense. What is worse, this scene implies that the disciples were disingenuous with their declaration about Jesus resurrection in the preceding verses. If they really believed what they said then their response to Jesus here should be, “Hey Jesus, good to see you again!”
As I mentioned, I don't feel I can build a credible case that these verses constitute a “second ending” to Luke. There are precedents, however. Mark has two additional endings. The 21st chapter of John’s Gospel is undoubtedly an add on. So why not Luke as well?
In the early church one of the alternative beliefs with which tradition contended as called Gnosticism. Gnostics denied the physical reality of Jesus. As they were entirely spirit-centered, Gnostics disavowed Jesus’ earthly suffering and contended that his crucifixion did not represent a physical death, as Jesus spirit was never impacted and his spirit was all that mattered. It is also true that before the first century was over a man named Marcion who was quite the Gnostic and a forerunner of Thomas Jefferson. By this I mean Marcion took his scissors to Christian writings and made a bible for himself made up largely of Paul and Luke. He liked Luke. Gee, I wonder why? There are even some, but not many, who question who came first. Did Luke play off of Marcion? Or the other way round.
In any event, with this as a backdrop, it is worth speculating whether the last seventeen verse of Luke were added at some later time to refute the purely “spiritual” nature of Jesus’ resurrection appearance. The emphasis of this last scene is upon very fleshly things, such as eating fish, having bones and flesh, and wounded hands. By adding these last verses the whole emphasis of the gospel can be transformed in one final scene from that of Christ’s presence in the sharing of the community to Jesus’ physical resuscitation and command to preach “forgiveness of sins.”
That is enough for today (more than enough?) Tomorrow we conclude as I try to make a case for why any of this matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment