Some Important Readers’ Questions on Some Gospel Head-Scratchers
QUESTION: If the strongest explanation for Luke’s alteration/omission of the centurion’s declaration that Jesus was the Son of God at the crucifixion is that he wants to anchor Jesus’s divine sonship at least as early as his birth, then why does he later associate that same divine sonship AND innocence with Jesus’s death and resurrection in Acts 13? Luke is combining a variety of early traditions that are at odds at WHEN it happened in order to stress that he really WAS the Son of God. (Similar problem in Luke-Acts with other titles for Jesus as well: Christ and Lord. He gets *made* those at the resurrection but is *already* those before he dies!) RESPONSE Yes indeed! It's one of the major questions to be addressed about Luke's Christology. Why does he state that Jesus became Son of God at his conception (1:35); at his baptism (3:21 – that’s the wording of the original text, probably); and at his resurrection (speeches in Acts). I deal with the issue in Orthodox Corruption in my discussion [...]



