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

Re: [XTalk] The Great Omission

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Ken, I think you forget that Luke, in addition to presenting the gospel, was also trying to write a history of things that happened in the early Christian
    Message 1 of 42 , Jan 11, 1970
    • 0 Attachment
      Ken Litwak wrote:

      > ..... The fact that in
      > Mark 7 Jesus makes such a big deal about redefiing clean and unclean and
      > declares all foods clean would have made the _perfect_ addition to Luke-Acts. 
      > How much better to have a statement by Jesus that essentially declared all
      > foods clean when Luke has to apparently work so hard to convince any Jewish
      > Christians that they should accept Gentiles and have table fellowship with
      > them. 

      Ken,

      I think you forget that Luke, in addition to presenting the gospel, was also
      trying to write a history of things that happened in the early Christian
      movement. In Acts, Luke did go to considerable trouble when he related the
      long story of Peter and Cornelius. As far as the Christian message is
      concerned, Luke might indeed have found it easier simply to include the
      shorter story in Mark 7. But he *wanted* to write a lot about Peter, if only
      in an attempt to balance the even greater amount he was going to write about
      Paul, and Peter's refusal to eat with Gentiles (Gal 2:12) may have been
      widely known in early Christian circles, in which case it would have been
      crying out for an explanation. Think of it from the author's point of view:
      if Luke had included a version of Mark 7, his readers might have been
      somewhat perplexed that Peter later apparently ignored his master's direct
      statement that all foods are 'clean'.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Richard Fellows
      William Campbell has a very interesting piece in JBL, in which he analyzes the styles of self-designation by Josephus, Polybius and Thucydides. I have reviewed
      Message 42 of 42 , Sep 14 8:19 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        William Campbell has a very interesting piece in JBL, in which he
        analyzes the styles of self-designation by Josephus, Polybius and
        Thucydides. I have reviewed his article here:

        http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.com/2010/09/we-passages-thucydides-polybius.html

        I use Campbell's data to argue that the author of Acts was present
        with Paul before the "We passages" as well as during them. Campbell
        himself seems to have overlooked this possibility and comes to a very
        different conclusion.

        Let me know what you think.

        Richard Fellows
        Vancouver


        Kenneth Litwak wrote:

        > I hadn't been following this discussion so I'm sorry to be posting
        > "late." I'd agree with Richard's assessment generally. I need to
        > read Robbins' essay but I'm familiar with MacDonald (I was at an SBL
        > session on Acts where Alexander, MacDonald, and Penner all presented
        > and found MacDonald's thesis far from demonstrated--and open to the
        > same criticisms as raised by Karl Olav Sandnes in his 2005 JBL
        > article on MacDonald's method),
        >
        > It seems to me that "we passages" do not indicate historigraphy
        > or fiction on their own, but I'm not convinced that they affirm
        > nothing about the narrator's participation but could mean either
        > presence or absence.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.