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

9394Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Luke to Theophilus

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    Nov 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: John Lupia <jlupia2@...>
      To: <synoptic-l@...>
      Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 4:36 PM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Luke to Theophilus


      Karel:

      > The chiasmus construction is indeed interesting and
      > important, as I wrote before. However, the
      > difficulties of equating Luke's Theophilus (a
      > honorific title), and your very early dating of his
      > Gospel and of his Acts are enormous, turning synoptic
      > scholarship upside down.

      John::

      > Two questions:
      >
      > How is the identification of the High Priest,
      > Theophilus (AD 37-41) enormously difficult?
      >
      > How is a date for the first canonical edition of the
      > Gospel of Luke to c. AD 37-41 enormously difficult?

      As I wrote Steve:
      With my remark re. studies of the Synoptic problem turned upside down, I
      meant that no one, as far as I know, has claimed. that Luke's Gospel was
      written at the end of the thirties!!


      > The early dating for Acts as a whole is obvious.

      Is it that "obvious"? Even since von Harnack some scholars have defended the
      theory that Acts was written first and that Luke adopted patterns from his
      Acts, simply because the book stopped with Paul arguing with "local leaders"
      in Rome, hence before 70 CE. The theory was still defended by the late Dutch
      scholar G. Bouwan. However, Luke according to most scholars wrote his Acts
      m,uch later. He probably thought it wise to leave the story of the Judean
      rebeliion and the subsequent beleaguering and fall of Jerusalem to the
      imagination of his readers. It had become public knowledge. His assesment
      might be deemed too painful in Judean circles and quite subversive to Roman
      eyes.


      > Richard has his own method to present a possible early
      > writing quite different from mine. I see Acts having
      > been written by at least two different authors where
      > the first wrote the first 11 chapters and the latter
      > by the second author(s).
      >
      >
      > Karel:
      > One would need IMHO better literary and historical proof than merely a
      suggestion that the Johanna in Luke's resurrection story might be the same
      as the granddaughter of a high priest from the house of Annas, which
      bitterly persecuted the ecclesia.
      >
      John:
      > >From the standpoint of historigraphic method one must
      > keep in mind that to make a valid suggestion the
      > suggestion must first be, at least, possible. For the
      > possibility, or if you prefer "suggestion" to be weak,
      > awkward, undesireable, or untenable one must
      > demonstrate difficulties the proposal encounters, or
      > in your earlier characterization above "enormous
      > difficulties" it encounters.

      Karel:
      Yes, John, one can only offer literary 'proof', if it is based on hard,
      historical data. Objective truth cannot be had on an ever debatable
      interpretation of these difficult texts. My critique is focussed on the
      lack of these hard data. For that very reason a
      hermeneutic of suspicion, - alas, the least objective of interpretative
      approaches -, is admissable in this case. I have my suspicions about
      Josephus' account of king Agrippa's actions. I am for instance interested
      in Josephus' story of a certain Simon who called an "ecclesia" together and
      was publicly mocked by Herod Agrippa I who subsequently banished by him. Is
      this related to the story of Peter's miraclulous escape in Acts 12 and his
      going to "another place (topos)"? What do you think? Here I believe, if
      reluctantly, a hermeneutic of suspicion is required. My hypothesis is that
      the two are indeed related. Josephus is hinting here at historical events
      he does not wish to spell out.


      cordially

      Karel









      >
      > As for "turning synoptic scholarship upside down" I
      > cannot think of a more appealing turn of events than
      > to see this come to fruition and fulfillment for
      > reasons that are obvious to many, today as well as in
      > the past. Since Lukan priority has no substantial
      > studies it stands to reason that it will be "turning
      > synoptic scholarship upside down".
      >
      >
      > Giovanni Lupia
      >
      >
      > =====
      > John N. Lupia, III
      > Toms River New Jersey 08757 USA
      > Phone: (732) 505-5325
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
      > God Bless America
      >
      > __________________________________
      > Do you Yahoo!?
      > Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
      > http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
      >
      > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      >



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic