Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8635Re: [XTalk] Dating of GMark

Expand Messages
  • Octavian Baban
    Dec 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Ted,

      I always read with great interest your thoroughly argued comments on NT
      and varia. As I was parsing the recent GMark thread, my attention was drawn
      to your evaluation of Luke's rhetorics, i.e.

      >[...] Are you suggesting that the Petrine statements in Acts are authentic
      to the
      > historical Peter and not inventions of Luke? If so, you and I have
      > radically different understandings of the rhetorical conventions Luke used
      > in order to communicate the points of his theologized history? Many
      Lukan
      > scholars have made a compelling case for Luke composing de novo the
      speeches
      > in Acts. Their work,in my judgment, is not "simply more speculation."
      >

      Rhetorics does not suppose, apparently, first and foremost creating
      arguments, or speeches, de novo, but rather reporting them in a form that
      suits the argument of the presenter (the rhetor). Somewhat dissimilar to
      Tacitus, for example, it could be argued that Luke does not invent speeches
      "from scratch", yet he rather reconstructs them in a credible way,
      condensing them and reporting them according to the literary practice of
      mimesis (imitation), with a certain dramatical touch (not far removed from
      the style of helenistic historians such as Theopompus of Chios, Phylarchus,
      Ephorus, Duris of Samos; B. Witherington iii takes them into consideration,
      for example, in his recent commentary on Acts, _The Acts of the Apostles. A
      Socio-Rhetorical Commentary_, Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1998, n. 114, p.
      31). If not exactly intending to leave us with the ipssisima verba of their
      heroes, such historians would still attempt to convey a genuine
      reconstruction of the past (although, quite often, a partisan one). Of
      course, there is a question to ask, here: how close is Luke to such
      historians, in ideology and his actual style?

      Returning to rhetorical habits of apocalypticists, are the apostolic
      apocalypticists succumbing to the temptation of creating things de novo? It
      would be interesting to remember the Early Church reluctance in accepting
      John's Apocalypse. Would the first Christians have accepted Mark's
      apocalyptic speeches attributed to Jesus, if there would not have been ways
      of connecting in a credible way his reconstructions to Jesus' actual
      utterances?

      Tavi Baban





      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Ted Weeden <weedent@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 6:47 AM
      Subject: Re: [XTalk] Dating of GMark
    • Show all 28 messages in this topic