Though Ludemann has laid down an absolute division between history, fact and knowledge on the one hand and belief, faith, and the handing down of tradition on the other, he hasn’t yet applied it to the text of scripture. The truth of the division would require denying that the books of scripture are intrinsically unified as by a single author or – what is the same thing – that there is any single authority makes the scriptural books a canon. As Ludemann puts it “Trusting the Gospels and reading them as supplementing one another [i.e. as forming a single whole - Ed.] is an anachronism in view of of modern scholarship’s adoption of the Two Documents Hypothesis… According to this, Matthew and Luke both used Mark and and the Saying Gospel Q… and did so independently of one another, but eyewitnesses composed none of these”. Ludemann supports his thesis by an appeal to Luke 1: 1-4:
Since many have attempted to compose a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, according as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the verity of those words in which you have been instructed.
Ludemann’s exegesis of the text is:
This passage is vital for judging the question of the origin of the Jesus traditions. What emerges is this: First came the oral tradition of eyewitnesses and servants of the word, none of whom set down his recollections of Jesus in writing. That happened only later, and certainly more than two Gospels came to be in this way. But these several written accounts had not yet gained significant and widespread respect. Therefore, based on his knowledge of Mark, Q, and several other resources, Luke intends to supercede – and probably replace – these earlier works with his gospel.
Thus, by this exegesis, it is necessary to read the books of Scripture in opposition to one another and not as supplementing each other.
theofloinn said,
May 9, 2012 at 12:11 pm
How does “fact” square with things like “Q” and the “Sayings Gospel”?
James Chastek said,
May 9, 2012 at 2:21 pm
I was open to Ludemann’s point of view, but this exegesis is very difficult to swallow. There is no reason we cannot read Luke as doing the opposite of what Ludemann claims he is doing. For starters, why not read Luke as trying to hand down the tradition – which, on L.’s account of history, makes Luke’s gospel ipso facto a non-historical account? More to the point, there is no indication that Luke is seeking to oppose, critique, or definitively surpass any text, much less Mark’s text in particular, which is the point on which Ludemann’s whole argument stands or falls.
Trev said,
May 9, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Isn’t the “who” a dependent clause to “us” making Luke both an eyewitness and a minister from the beginning?