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

Re: [XTalk] Why Luke?

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    Hi Mark, ... Thank you for this agreement! ... I understand this concern, but at times I think we can only see linkages not by direct reference, but rather by
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 27, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Mark,

      >I am pleased that you continually link up Luke with Gjohn, since I have
      >argued for Gjohn's influence on Luke. Certainly you could find a lot
      >more linkages there, but you have at least given some hints at the
      >extensiive links, and at Luke's tendendcy to move back and forth between
      >Mark and John as major influences -- what I have called a dialogue with
      >these former gospels!

      Thank you for this agreement!
      >
      >I am not as sure about trying to tie everything down to other documents.
      >I would want to see some rather precise literary linkages that suggest
      >direct usage and/or allusions (as I did in my "In Dialogue with Another
      >Gospel?"). Only vague connections (as you suggest with infancy gospels)
      >could be as much accounted by oral tradition, or by an interpretation of
      >the OT in light of prevailing understanding (for instance the birth
      >narratives in Luke seem to be influenced by Matthew and 1 Samuel).

      I understand this concern, but at times I think we can only see linkages not
      by direct reference, but rather by choosing to do things very differently.
      As I just wrote to Mike G. and Bob S. I very much think that part of Luke's
      framing in Acts the 40 days resurrection appearance time frame, the
      classical theophany for Paul is written in the face on ongoing "new
      revelations" and the texting of them such as we see in G. Mary. This gives
      some further definition to the meaning of the res. appearances, sets some
      limits and gives some order to the importance of persons and their witness.
      With the Infancy James, I really do suspect a relatively early compilation
      of some of these stories about Jesus' family and kin coming out of Jerusalem
      and/or the places where the authority of the family of Jesus was strong. As
      this is an interesting mix of legendary sort of writing (mythmaking) and
      concern for Jewish connections, I think this bodes for early rather than
      simply all being late. Precision about just how much was written is
      something I'm not sure about. But as with the issue of visions I see Luke
      setting some defintions and limits to both oral and written traditions in
      what he does.
      >
      >In other words, I am less impressed with your finding linkages with G.
      >Mary, or with the Infancy gospels, or others (in your previous note you
      >suggested P.Egerton, which I think shows signs of itself being a late
      >conflation). I would think carefully tying down specific influences on
      >Luke would proceed a bit more cautiously.

      As I said, this was a post simply meant to show the broad issues. It is
      meant as an invitation to consider these broad strokes and for folks to try
      this view out. For those who simply think this is all bogus, then the
      answer is to simply ignore the invitation! For those like yourself who
      don't simply buy the traditional Mark first, then Matthew and Luke and last
      John, the I hope this invitation does serve to think about these sorts of
      connections not only in terms of precise textual links, but in terms of
      issues and themes and such as "the creative spirit!"
      >
      >What I wonder, though, is the absolute late dating. You seem to
      >presuppose a late John. Why? If John were early, then you could move
      >the entire time line for Luke forward, as I think more likely. I am
      >increasingly convinced that a late dating for John is built on very
      >shaky foundations.
      >
      >I tend to put forward a bit more modest proposal:
      >
      >Luke used:
      > a) Mark (his most reliable source)
      > b) Matthew (from which he drew the so-called Q material)
      > c) John (who influenced him, but with whom he was not entirely
      >convinced about accuracy)
      > d) OT narratives that influenced how he interepreted some events
      > e) other oral narratives, and perhaps unknown documents, that we
      >can only guess at since we can't tie down sufficiently the
      >explicit literary connections.
      >
      >Just a counter proposal, for you to consider.

      Thank you for sharing your proposal. Again, I'm for pushing all the
      narrative creativity back because I think we don't get Mark til 75 or so. I
      think there was a collection of wonder stories written (the 5 common types
      of stories) in the 50's and the framing of Signs after that. It's been a
      good while since I read the work on the stages from Signs to John, but I
      cannot like you put Complete John 1 (as I'll call it here... that is
      1-20:23,30-31 any earlier than 90 and I really see it coming after the
      situation lightened up in the last days of Domitian and Nerva. I do think
      there was Q and I accept the redactions although I hold some judgments about
      the outer limits that the Q scholars have placed on Q. I do think we have
      G.Thomas 1 and 2 in the first century. So, we shall disagree about how you
      see Luke's sources.

      Thank you for this note and agreement where we share it.

      Gordon Raynal
      Inman, SC
    • Gordon Raynal
      Larry, Thanks for your note. I ve got to go to an evening meeting and will get back with you about this post. Gordon Raynal Inman, SC
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 27, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Larry,
        Thanks for your note. I've got to go to an evening meeting and will get
        back with you about this post.
        Gordon Raynal
        Inman, SC
        ----------
        >From: "Larry Swain" <theswain@...>
        >To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: Re: [XTalk] Why Luke?
        >Date: 27, Apr 2004, 5:38 PM
        >

        >Gordon,
        >
        >I'm avoiding other work at the moment, so I'll take a few moments and
        >question your thought process here.
        >
        >On your #1, I don't see how this helps a late dating of Luke. His use of
        >Mark's, Paul's, and Didache's understanding of baptism, if true, only shows
        >that he is writing after these documents. His take on JTB and Jesus and
        >their Hebraic context might be read against the early second century
        >debates, but doesn't have to be--especially if his sources locate Jesus and
        >JB there, such as the GJohn does. Similarly, the differences in treatment
        >re: JTB and Jesus and baptism need to be demonstrated as sources that beg
        >for different dates, not merely different treatments and competing
        >interpretations. I do not see how this helps push the date of Luke into
        >the second century.
        >
        >
        >>
        >> 2. Birth and Childhood. G.John flatly says Joseph was Jesus' dad.
        >
        >Only in so far as Mark, Matthew, and Luke do. This "claim" is always on
        >the lips of others, never by Jesus or in authorital voice. Thus, Philip
        >says it to Nathaniel and the "Jews" say it in response to Jesus in chapter
        >6. I don't think I can agree with you that G. John "flatly says" that
        >Jesus is Joseph's son, and since I disagree with your readings there, I
        >have to reject the conclusion you draw from it. The "Isaianic" midrash you
        >speak of MIGHT be taken as indicating a later date, but not necessarily as
        >late as 120, unless of course you place Matthew there as well.
        >
        >
        >> 3. Disciples/Apostles. From G. John you'd hardly know anything about "the
        >> 12."
        >
        >I disagree, one knows more about certain members of the group from John
        >than we do from the Synoptics. That the 12 in John are not significant as
        >a group of 12 might be taken to indicate which is earlier, or which
        >tradition is earlier, but even that is not really convincing. Again, it
        >may just be put down to a competing kind of tradition: if for example (and
        >I don't necessarily think this, I'm just putting out an example) the
        >"beloved disciple" is "John the Elder" who is distinct from John the
        >Apostle, son of Zebedee, then this John the Elder wasn't part of the 12
        >(see the typical reading of Papias and his list of the 12), and as such
        >would probably stress his own eyewitness accounts rather than a group of
        >"12" who are now dead and didn't leave anything written in the first place.
        > This is just one scenario.
        >
        >
        >
        > From G. Mary you get the info about a woman visionary. From G. John
        >> you get Martha being a meal server. And if one accounts that now there's
        >> deutero-Paul writing going on and then his own claims about his being "an
        >> apostle" and then who knows who else claiming "apostleship," and questions
        >> about Jesus' family and their status being up for grabs, then Luke sets the
        >> record straight. Jesus, as Mark says, chooses 12, Peter is the head guy,
        >> the women do things like carry the purse, Martha is put down, Jesus' family
        >> wasn't among "the 12" and Paul wasn't there. This cleans up the heritage.
        >>
        >
        >Since both Mark and Matthew have this information, I fail to see how Luke
        >can be seen as including it in his gospel in contrast or competition to
        >John, "setting the record straight" as you put it. If this were a valid
        >argument than all 3 Synoptics are post 120!
        >
        >
        >> 4. Jesus' teaching. "Jesus said" or "Jesus meant" was really going all over
        >> the place if one looks at these cited resources. Utilizing Q and (in my
        >> view) the old list of parables, G. Luke fills out Mark with the earliest
        >> materials and thus limits the whole swimming phenomena of the value of "new
        >> revelations."
        >
        >Non sequitur. And even if we grant the argument, this only indicates a
        >date later than Mark, end of the first century, not 120.
        >
        >
        >>
        >> 5. Ministry time. He favors the Markan accounting over the Johannine.
        >> Having 2 entirely different stories could be a huge embarrassment!
        >
        >True, but you assume that they saw it as two different stories. Yes,
        >Irenaeus does at the end of the second century, but it doesn't follow that
        >they did in the first century. It also assumes that they read Mark as a 3
        >year ministry that later became traditional. Is there in fact evidence
        >that it was so understood? If he were using John, one would further expect
        >more reconciliation rather than rejection.
        >
        >> 6. Death. All sorts of things were floating here. From nascent "gnostic
        >> notions" of death wasn't real to various sorts of tellings in Mark, John, G.
        >> Peter, Ep. Barnabas stories were going all over the place and Luke
        >> re-affirms the Isaianic midrash and other exegesis that is in the Markan
        >> passion.
        >
        >Again, why is this necessarily 120 rather than 80?
        >
        >> 8. Lord's Supper. Mark and John don't give one a singular clear focus on
        >> this. The Didache proposes a ritual. Luke goes back and affirms the Markan
        >> and Pauline instruction and ties this to the Passover celebration.
        >
        >Ditto.
        >
        >>
        >> 9. Resurrection. Paul has no mention of women as individuals. Mark and
        >> John note their presence and importance. Plus Mark and John 1-20 have
        >> Galilee as the focus for the appearance action. Luke wanted it in Jerusalem
        >> and environs and his story ties that together the OT/NT connections.
        >
        >
        >And this indicates a late date? How so?
        >
        >> 10. The Parousia. Think Revelation. Think the old homeland boiling again
        >> building towards Bar Kochba. Apocalyptic writings in the past stirred
        >> support for violence. And Revelation (as it surely has many times) can lead
        >> to sectarianism that is highly negativistic about the value of life. G.
        >> Luke emphasizes again the peace aspects of Jesus mission. At the outset it
        >> is sung in the air. The addition of Q and doubling the mission from just
        >> the 12 to add the 70 and elaborating the story of Jesus entry into Jerusalem
        >> with "Would that you knew this day the things that make for peace," Luke
        >> settles things down and reaffirms the stance of Jesus and the earliest
        >> followers.
        >
        >But this could fit the mid 60s just as well, if not better than 120!
        >
        >
        >> So that's 10 reasons for Luke and I think this list also helps tie Luke to
        >> ca. 120-130.
        >> Agreements? Disputes? Additions?
        >>
        >
        >
        >I should state that I'm not necessarily rejecting the conclusion, nor
        >saying that Luke doesn't make use of and know John. I'm mostly poking
        >holes in how you arrive at your conclusion. I don't see any of your 10
        >reasons as doing anything more than putting Luke after Mark, and possibly
        >after John. On the latter case, though, you don't present a case for a
        >late John and seem to ignore source critical questions regarding John's
        >composition. That is, is Luke familiar with John, or is he familiar with
        >sources or oral traditions that were later included in GJohn. It seems to
        >me that that needs to be established to some degree before arguing that
        >Luke postdates John and is early second century.
        >
        >Just my .01
        >
        >Larry Swain
        >--
        >_____________________________________________________________
        >Web-based SMS services available at http://www.operamail.com
        >From your mailbox to local or overseas cell phones.
        >
        >Powered by Outblaze
        >
        >
        >
        >The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
        >
        >To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Gordon Raynal
        Hi Larry, Thanks for your thoughts... just a few replies for now. ... Glad to help you do that:)! ... Let me just start with this sentence. The lateness, of
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 28, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Larry,

          Thanks for your thoughts... just a few replies for now.

          ----------
          >From: "Larry Swain" <theswain@...>

          >I'm avoiding other work at the moment, so I'll take a few moments and
          >question your thought process here.

          Glad to help you do that:)!
          >
          >On your #1, I don't see how this helps a late dating of Luke.

          Let me just start with this sentence. The lateness, of course, depends upon
          the production and distribution and thought about the latest resources I
          think Luke had to work with. As I think John 1-20:23,30-31 is from circa
          100, the Didache from that same era (accounting with Crossan that a section
          may be still later), the Baptismal credo the same and then accounting for
          spread, utilization, some serious thinking, then that for me suggests "no
          earlier than 110." I think more likely that 120-130 suits because this
          whole list of issues and others we might mention reflects not simply
          thought, but dealing with issues that are alive and communities are tussling
          over. Luke is a gem of a piece of artistry, in my view. As you know I
          don't think it's creativity based in copying "that extra Markan stuff" from
          Matthew:)! I think it reflects thoughtfulness about both base resources:
          key are Q, a written parable collection, Mark and careful response to such
          as G.Mary, the growing birth/youth traditions and "what to do about John's
          story???" So, if you will accept my datings for those other resources and if
          you think Luke worked really fast then go with circa 110. I think there's a
          little more time involved with it.

          Second, this post and these 10 suggestions were written as general sorts of
          descriptions of issues Luke deals with. I hope what those so interested
          will do is to spend some serious time reading and thinking about the primary
          texts. If Q bugs you or anyone else, then just drop it and go with Farrer
          and our friend Mark Goodacre's view. But I still want folks to think about
          the intertextuality issues suggested in this model not by simply harping on
          this or that detail, but by reading the texts. I ***fully** realize that
          this is a challenge to some hoary tradition. I'd simply like folks to
          consider it and whether they agree or disagree to think more in terms of
          intertextuality, the diversity alive and well in the earliest era of
          Christianity and how much creativity was involved in the wrangles and the
          agreements that worked to produce literature so hardy as to inspire so much
          work 2 milennia later. Fine if folks want to think (per Joseph Weaks good
          fun jest) that my views are from a loon:)! My feelings aren't hurt. I
          simply want folks to do some serious thought work on the primary texts in
          relationship to one another and not this or that favorite modern author or
          this or that theological or a-theological defense.

          Having said this, some comments here and there.

          >> 2. Birth and Childhood. G.John flatly says Joseph was Jesus' dad.
          >
          >Only in so far as Mark, Matthew, and Luke do. This "claim" is always on
          >the lips of others, never by Jesus or in authorital voice. Thus, Philip
          >says it to Nathaniel and the "Jews" say it in response to Jesus in chapter
          >6. I don't think I can agree with you that G. John "flatly says" that
          >Jesus is Joseph's son, and since I disagree with your readings there, I
          >have to reject the conclusion you draw from it. The "Isaianic" midrash you
          >speak of MIGHT be taken as indicating a later date, but not necessarily as
          >late as 120, unless of course you place Matthew there as well.

          Well, Philip in chapter one is John's second group of disciples called to
          join Jesus. There's no rejoinder by Jesus about being "True Son of the
          father." It's just a rather natural description. Mind you, I don't think
          this is historical reportage going on in this creative story. I'm simply
          talking about the plain dialogue of a creative story. If Luke had access to
          either some written form of birth/childhood narrative and access to the
          Isaianic midrash, then I think as John is circa 100 then this is one of
          these issues Luke is making more "orderly," not for the sake of history, but
          for the kerygmatic proclamation.
          >
          >
          >> 3. Disciples/Apostles. From G. John you'd hardly know anything about "the
          >> 12."
          >
          >I disagree, one knows more about certain members of the group from John
          >than we do from the Synoptics. That the 12 in John are not significant as
          >a group of 12 might be taken to indicate which is earlier, or which
          >tradition is earlier, but even that is not really convincing. Again, it
          >may just be put down to a competing kind of tradition: if for example (and
          >I don't necessarily think this, I'm just putting out an example) the
          >"beloved disciple" is "John the Elder" who is distinct from John the
          >Apostle, son of Zebedee, then this John the Elder wasn't part of the 12
          >(see the typical reading of Papias and his list of the 12), and as such
          >would probably stress his own eyewitness accounts rather than a group of
          >"12" who are now dead and didn't leave anything written in the first place.
          > This is just one scenario.

          So, we disagree. As an issue of orderliness, Luke in Luke and later Acts is
          very interested in **the 12** and Petrine authority in this. John is later
          ammended to be brought it line. In this regard, so to speak, I think Luke
          was successful and this led to the reason for that ammendment.
          >
          >
          >
          > From G. Mary you get the info about a woman visionary. From G. John
          >> you get Martha being a meal server. And if one accounts that now there's
          >> deutero-Paul writing going on and then his own claims about his being "an
          >> apostle" and then who knows who else claiming "apostleship," and questions
          >> about Jesus' family and their status being up for grabs, then Luke sets the
          >> record straight. Jesus, as Mark says, chooses 12, Peter is the head guy,
          >> the women do things like carry the purse, Martha is put down, Jesus' family
          >> wasn't among "the 12" and Paul wasn't there. This cleans up the heritage.
          >>
          >
          >Since both Mark and Matthew have this information, I fail to see how Luke
          >can be seen as including it in his gospel in contrast or competition to
          >John, "setting the record straight" as you put it. If this were a valid
          >argument than all 3 Synoptics are post 120!

          John has the trio as very important folks... Lazarus, Mary and Martha of
          Bethany. Lazarus isn't "a 12 guy." Luke seriously puts down Martha and
          doesn't even mention where that home scene took place. I think this is part
          of the strategy of upping the 12 and putting down important women leaders.
          >
          >
          >> 4. Jesus' teaching. "Jesus said" or "Jesus meant" was really going all over
          >> the place if one looks at these cited resources. Utilizing Q and (in my
          >> view) the old list of parables, G. Luke fills out Mark with the earliest
          >> materials and thus limits the whole swimming phenomena of the value of "new
          >> revelations."
          >
          >Non sequitur. And even if we grant the argument, this only indicates a
          >date later than Mark, end of the first century, not 120.

          Nope. If we account such as G. Thomas being framed from an early sayings
          gospel to a redacted one where the emphasis becomes "the words of THE LIVING
          JESUS" (i.e. heavenly affirmed communication) and we think about such as G.
          Mary endorses ongoing visions and conversation, what this return to
          important early sayings traditions writings does is make clear that "what
          Jesus said back then" and "is inscribed in early authoritative works" helps
          put the kabosh on the standing of visionary received "words" and those who's
          authority is based in this.
          >
          >
          >>
          >> 5. Ministry time. He favors the Markan accounting over the Johannine.
          >> Having 2 entirely different stories could be a huge embarrassment!
          >
          >True, but you assume that they saw it as two different stories. Yes,
          >Irenaeus does at the end of the second century, but it doesn't follow that
          >they did in the first century. It also assumes that they read Mark as a 3
          >year ministry that later became traditional. Is there in fact evidence
          >that it was so understood? If he were using John, one would further expect
          >more reconciliation rather than rejection.

          No. He liked John's Jerusalem ending, but focusing on other disciples
          coming back to the 12 and to the "upper room." But he wanted Mark's basic
          plot. Again, this reflects "after John" as far as I'm concerned.
          >
          >> 6. Death. All sorts of things were floating here. From nascent "gnostic
          >> notions" of death wasn't real to various sorts of tellings in Mark, John, G.
          >> Peter, Ep. Barnabas stories were going all over the place and Luke
          >> re-affirms the Isaianic midrash and other exegesis that is in the Markan
          >> passion.
          >
          >Again, why is this necessarily 120 rather than 80?

          Again dates of the other literature I want you to consider.
          >
          >> 8. Lord's Supper. Mark and John don't give one a singular clear focus on
          >> this. The Didache proposes a ritual. Luke goes back and affirms the Markan
          >> and Pauline instruction and ties this to the Passover celebration.
          >
          >Ditto.

          and ditto back.
          >
          >>
          >> 9. Resurrection. Paul has no mention of women as individuals. Mark and
          >> John note their presence and importance. Plus Mark and John 1-20 have
          >> Galilee as the focus for the appearance action. Luke wanted it in Jerusalem
          >> and environs and his story ties that together the OT/NT connections.
          >
          >
          >And this indicates a late date? How so?

          Well, if all this talk of ongoing revelations is going on, then the
          importance of distinguishing the resurrection communications and who got
          them, from later sorts of visionary experiences is a piece of the puzzle.
          So again... those other late texts and Luke carefully responding to issues
          of words, place and authority figures.
          >
          >> 10. The Parousia. Think Revelation. Think the old homeland boiling again
          >> building towards Bar Kochba. Apocalyptic writings in the past stirred
          >> support for violence. And Revelation (as it surely has many times) can lead
          >> to sectarianism that is highly negativistic about the value of life. G.
          >> Luke emphasizes again the peace aspects of Jesus mission. At the outset it
          >> is sung in the air. The addition of Q and doubling the mission from just
          >> the 12 to add the 70 and elaborating the story of Jesus entry into Jerusalem
          >> with "Would that you knew this day the things that make for peace," Luke
          >> settles things down and reaffirms the stance of Jesus and the earliest
          >> followers.
          >
          >But this could fit the mid 60s just as well, if not better than 120!

          Think Revelation. Written probably right before Domitian backed off.
          That's before 96.


          Hope some of this helps.

          Others who've written, I'll get to still later.

          Gordon Raynal
          Inman, SC
        • Gordon Raynal
          Hi Ernie, Back for a bit before I have to run out again. A few words about some of ... First, a confession: I am a ... I m not... neither for TANAK nor the
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 29, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Ernie,

            Back for a bit before I have to run out again. A few words about some of
            your points:
            ----------
            >From: "Linda & Ernest Pennells" <pennells@...>

            First, a confession: I am a
            >source-criticism sceptic.

            I'm not... neither for TANAK nor the NT writings. These Hebrew/Jewish folks
            had a long, fine tradition of taking old texts and editting them and making
            something new out of old shards. This study helps show such as creativity,
            development and change in traditions andt his in turn can be played off of
            what we can figure out about different historical eras. Plus, as a general
            comment, these folks loved to haggle in their sacred writings! We are
            always dealing with theoretical constructs, but then even the texts we have
            in our modern Bibles are theoretical constructs. As far as I'm concerned
            thinking through these issues is critical to understanding the theological
            nature of the texts and traditions and for historical inquiry. To the
            Torah. "J's" Moses isn't "E's" Moses. We are the richer for understanding
            J, E, D and P and the extant Torah portrait. And so for understanding the
            Jesus of the many Gospels and the differences in the various layers of those
            Gospels that we can detect. So, we'll have to disagree about this and its
            importance.

            >Why - with Jerusalem and its temple in ruins - would the author strain to
            >show that Jesus, the apostles and Paul, were loyal devotees of a temple
            >that YHWH had abandoned and Rome destroyed, as Jesus had prophesied?

            I hope you'll read my notes to Vincent, yesterday and Mike this a.m.
            Regarding this specific issue, as I noted to Mike, this just emphasizes my
            point. Jesus is shown in Luke weeping and saying "Would that you knew this
            day the things that make for peace." This is one piece of distinguishing
            that Jesus was part and parcel of an ancient religion and not a
            superstition, and yet at the same time a guy who really, really stood for
            peace and good order.
            >
            >Why - decades after Paul was dead and gone - would a follower of the risen
            >Christ, who reveals considerable independence from Paul's own thought,
            >find it relevant to devote five times as much space to Paul's legal
            >entanglement than to Jesus' "trial"?

            Again... Roman citizen Paul, exercizing his rights, was someone associated
            and murderously so with the those ultimately troublesome Jerusalem leaders.
            But Jesus from heaven changed him into a peaceful man sharing a spiritual
            message. He was hounded for it, brave in the face of many torments, yet
            ***never suggested violence*** but rather exercized his Roman rights and is
            shown at the last, alive (not a martyr for a cause) preaching the spiritual,
            peace KOG and Jesus. In the realization that Trajan had to deal with Jewish
            revolts at the end of his reign... in the reality that Hadrian had been the
            Syrian legate and knew the importance of Palestine as a buffer against the
            Parthians and that he knew how troublesome Jerusalem Jews could be, I take
            it that in the aftermath of this that Luke was trying to show that these
            Christians weren't "superstitious troublemakers," but rather rooted in an
            acceptable ancient religion and really "the good guys." And all that
            trouble to get Paul alive and safely in Rome. Well, this prisoner fellow,
            even in chains, wasn't instigating secret meetings, boasting about "the end
            of the Roman order," but even in chains peaceful.
            >
            >How would the author be well informed about local administrative and legal
            >process, and office holders, at diverse locations scattered around the
            >eastern Mediterranean half a century earlier?

            Records and a good imagination to make up a really cool story to bring this
            all together.

            I hope this helps get to some of the issues.

            (Karel, must run again, but I'll get to your note, probably tomorrow.)

            Gordon Raynal
            Inman, SC
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.