>From: "Stevan Davies" <miser17@...>Yeah, but unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke 3:21-22 separates the descent of the
>Yes I do hold that view and defend it in J the H.
>IMO it all makes perfectly good sense.
>Others have liked the bapt as history because of its embarassment
>factors and multiple attestation. And in Acts the bapt of John
>and getting the spirit are carefully separated and two entirely
HS onto Jesus from the baptism too, so what does Acts prove? Or are you back
to your notion, which intrigues me, that Acts was written before Luke, say,
in the 60s, and then Luke 1-2 was added last of all? Am I remembering that
correctly? It's been a while since I've been tuned into Davies-speak, except
for the Davies textbook intro to the NT, which I also used this semester:
getting to like that volume more and more every time I use it.
Thomas A. Kopecek, Religion and History
Central College, Pella, Iowa 50219
- Apologies for sending a test message, but I think the work that has been
affecting others has finally come my way. I don't seem to be receiving any
recent CT postings.
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626