I thought Ehrman’s, (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writers), comparative approach to Luke was very interesting, especially in regards to Luke’s idea of eschatology.  Today, within many Christian denominations, eschatology seems to retain a significant emphasis on liturgy and doctrine.  This fascination manifests different reactions according to each denomination’s interpretation.  Many denominations turn fundamentally inwardly to maintain the purity of their dogma; while others extend an outward hand to assist others soteriologically.   Yet even some seem to exist without any particular qualms for society in general.  Moreover in a comparative analysis, perhaps the interpretation of eschatology today is similar to that which was transpiring during New Testament times.  As Ehrman writes, this may be why Luke modified the pervasive belief of an imminent “End Times” spread by the gospels of Mark and Matthew. 

 

In a sense, I appreciate how Luke used his own attempts at redaction criticism to modify the elements in which he specifically felt were erroneous.  Ehrman specifies this point adamantly with Luke’s constant redaction of Mark.  Since most New Testament historians believe Mark to be a major source for both Matthew and Luke, it is interesting to see the comparison and differences Ehrman articulates between the primary and secondary sources.  For instance, Mark speaks of an imminent “End of Days” in 9:1; “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God as come with power.”  For Mark, this meant that Jesus’ return with power would be imminent.  As we have already discussed in class, Mark’s political milieu constantly parried destruction, being in the midst of a significant war between Rome and the Jews, so a prescribed redemption of mankind or “Second Coming” may have justified the social ethos of the time.

 

Notwithstanding, Luke disagrees in the fact that the “End Times” were imminent.  Ehrman writes that this antithesis may be because Luke believed that the “Good News” needed to spread to the entirety of the Gentiles, before a cataclysmic event would occur.  Thus for Luke, a significant amount of time would need to pass to spread the entirety of the news, so the nascent community should maintain focus on the “ills of society” and prevent the outward abandonment (137-139).

 

This idea, in a socio-historical context, may have been extremely prevalent among the communities of believers, and in being so, may contribute to Luke’s redaction of Mark.  Perhaps, these fledgling communities were focusing too intently on their inward perfection of the spirit and withdrawing from the external ills of society.  But if this is the case, why did Matthew not see this as also prevalent; especially since Matthew emphatically bolstered righteousness and obedience to “the Law.”  Perhaps with this in mind, Helmut Koester’s argument that Luke was written a little later in the early 2^nd c. CE, rationally makes a great deal of sense.  Therefore if Luke was written a little later in time, perhaps many of the emphases within the community had changed or evolved, so a truer revised message was needed.