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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic 'Sitz im Leben'

Expand Messages
  • Richard Anderson
    Mike Parsons, greetings: [Richard Anderson] Although you mention David Moessner, you do not identify his book. In Lord of the Banquet at page 315 he indicates
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 28 2:06 PM
      Mike Parsons, greetings:
               
      [Richard Anderson] Although you mention David Moessner, you 
      do not identify his book. In Lord of the Banquet
       at page 315 he
       indicates it is time to reconsider the dating of Luke-Acts. 
      

      [Richard Anderson] Thus Moessner would agree with me that the sitz im leben proposed by Ron Price is not appropriate.   
      [Richard Anderson] 

       David P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet p.315 ff.

      The significance of the Travel Narrative (Part 1)

      The atmosphere, rather, of the Acts is one of an irenic appeal to various groups within Judaism and the church to unite within the one "hope of Israe1"(fn98) at a time when clearly the break between synagogue and church was anything but complete. Paul goes to the Temple for a vow, the Jews in Rome receive Paul's word eagerly (Acts 28:22). This period of "engaged disengagement" just prior to 70 C.E. could well reflect the time of Luke's writing to "you, your Excellency, Theophilus" (Luke

      In sum, on the basis of our limited internal analysis of plot and plot motivation in Luke-Acts, a pre-70 C.E. date for the completion of the two volumes should be given new and serious contemplation.

      [Richard Anderson] As to theology of the cross I suggest Greg Herrick's webpage, The Atonement in Lucan Theology in Recent Discussion.  I note that even Howard Marshall has stated that Luke has chosen to de-emphasize this issue.
       
      Ron Price wrote:
      >Richard Anderson wrote:
      >
      >>I going to address Luke only. My problem with late dating and relative
      >>dating to Matt and Mark is this. Luke has no theology of the cross.

      i fear i've jumped into the middle of this discussionw/o following it closely, but i simply wish to register a dissenting voice to the notion that luke has 'no theology of the cross.' i think david moessner's work ("the christ must suffer/the church must suffer"), among others, has shown how deeply the suffering of Christ figures into luke's theology. it may not be paul's theology of the cross, but it is a theology of the cross nonetheless. i think this notion (e.g., luke has no theology of the cross) is a vestige of older (especially German) redactional studies (conzelmann, et al and the 'theology of glory') which ought to be dispensed with. for what it's worth,
      mikeal parsons

      .



      Mikeal C. Parsons
      Department of Religion
      Baylor University
      Waco, TX 76798
      Voice: 254-710-4591
      FAX: 254-710-3740
    • Richard Anderson
      Mike Parsons, greetings: As a further reply, my views are set forth in my article, The Cross and Atonement from Luke to Hebrews published in Evangelical
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 28 3:24 PM
        Mike Parsons, greetings:
        As a further reply, my views are set forth in my article, The Cross and Atonement from Luke to Hebrews published in Evangelical Quarterly 71:2 (1999) 127-149 and at my webpage:
        i fear i've jumped into the middle of this discussionw/o following it closely, but i simply wish to register a dissenting voice to the notion that luke has 'no theology of the cross.' i think david moessner's work ("the christ must suffer/the church must suffer"), among others, has shown how deeply the suffering of Christ figures into luke's theology. it may not be paul's theology of the cross, but it is a theology of the cross nonetheless. i think this notion (e.g., luke has no theology of the cross) is a vestige of older (especially German) redactional studies (conzelmann, et al and the 'theology of glory') which ought to be dispensed with. for what it's worth,
        mikeal parsons

        .



        Mikeal C. Parsons
        Department of Religion
        Baylor University
        Waco, TX 76798
        Voice: 254-710-4591
        FAX: 254-710-3740
      • Richard Anderson
        Dave Gentile asked: Would it be fair to say that Luke contains less (or none?) or Paul s specific theology, when compared to the other two synoptics? Yes, the
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 29 4:27 AM
          Dave Gentile asked:

          Would it be fair to say that Luke contains less (or none?) or Paul's
          specific theology, when compared to the other two synoptics? Yes, the
          explanation appears below. This is true because both Matt and Mark have a
          theology of the cross and condemn the animal sacrifical system while Luke
          neither condemn nor develop a theology of the cross.

          the following is taken from my published article, The Cross and Atonement
          from Luke to Hebrews. (footnotes omitted) the full test is on my webpage.

          Although no commentator has previously discussed the Jewish belief of
          atonement relating to the death of the High Priest in connection with the
          theology of the cross, it is clear to me that Luke has deferentially
          acknowledged the importance of that belief to his thinking. Thus Luke either
          has no theology of the cross or has not emphasized that aspect.

          After the crucifixion and resurrection, the followers of Jesus participated
          in the rituals and festivities of Judaism relating to the Day of Atonement.
          'The Palestinian local churches continued to observe the sabbath and keep
          the law; they considered themselves to be a fraternity inside Jewry.'
          Danielou has shown that 'Jewish Christianity is a theologia gloriae, in
          which the accent is placed on the victory of Christ and its cosmic
          efficacy.'

          The suggestion of Kasemann that theologia gloriae displaced theologia crucis
          fails to recognize the atoning value that Jews placed on the death of the
          High Priest. When this belief is properly understood in its historical
          context, there can be no dispute that the early Palestinian Jewish followers
          of Jesus attempted to retain this belief. For instance, Esler states: 'It is
          indeed, very difficult to imagine how a theory of atoning death of Jesus,
          already present in Paul and Mark and, indeed, in pre-Pauline and pre-Marcan
          traditions, could have arisen among Jews who preserved close links with the
          sacrificial cult.' Later Esler opines that the exclusion of Greek-speaking
          Christians from the temple 'may have led them actually to forsake attendance
          at temple services and even to develop a theology which attributed to Jesus,
          rather than the sacrificial cult, the central role in forgiveness of sin.'
          Thus, Esler has cogently shown how the theology of the cross may have
          developed out of acts of exclusions directed against Greek-speaking
          Christians.

          On the basis of these remarkable findings, Esler concludes that Luke tried
          to relate the ambivalence that God-fearers experienced in entering the
          temple to the experience of Luke's community 'with a very mixed nature of
          individuals who comprised its membership.' For Esler, Luke 1) 'could trade
          upon the affectionate memory by setting his gospel more closely than any of
          the others in the Temple'; 2) provide 'veiled recognition of the mission to
          the Gentiles' and 3) illustrate that 'continued devotion to the temple cult
          and to the Messiahship of Jesus were fundamentally incompatible.' Yet Esler
          does not tell us what are the beliefs of Luke's community.

          No commentator has previously discussed the significance of Luke having no
          theology of the cross. As previously noted, initially its absence provided
          the clue as to the identity of Theophilus. Esler correctly recognized that
          the early Christians because of their close links to the sacrificial system
          were unlikely to develop a theology of the cross. The Jews and early
          Christians believed that the death of the High Priest had atoning
          significance. The death of the High Priest was regarded as atonement for the
          innocent blood that had been shed. As long as the Temple stood, the High
          Priest was in office, the Day of Atonement was being observed and Judaism
          recognized the followers of Jesus as Jews there was no need or reason for
          Luke to proclaim a theology of the cross and in fact, Luke has no theology
          of the cross. Esler has proposed that it was the acts of exclusions directed
          against Greek-speaking Christians that was the impetus to the development of
          the theology of the cross. The doctrine of the theology of the cross
          replaced both the High Priest and the Day of Atonement.

          Therefore it can be said that Esler has accurately depicted the beliefs of a
          segment of the community. But Luke does not identify with that segment and
          Luke's overall presentation has been to demonstrate that Stephen and his
          group are a distinctive minority among the followers of Jesus. Jewish
          Christians, like Judaism, welcomed Gentiles but did not actively recruit
          Gentiles. The only mass conversions reported in Acts are of Jews. In the
          thirty years covered by the Acts of the Apostles, only a small number of
          God-fearing Gentiles, exemplified by Cornelius, became followers of Jesus.
          James addressed Paul on his arrival in Jerusalem: 'You see, brother, how
          many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed . . . .'

          . . .

          The doctrine of the theology of the cross is mutually exclusive with the
          Jewish doctrine of salvation. Not only are the doctrines mutually exclusive,
          adherents of one doctrine could not in the first century share the religious
          experience with adherents of the other doctrine. If the only difference
          between the two faiths had been the rules of table fellowship observed by
          Judaism, adherents could share the religious experience but not share meals.
          Therefore the table-fellowship rules that preclude Jews eating food that is
          not kosher by itself would not be socially disruptive. This is not to say
          that these table-fellowship rules were not the cause of the split between
          Judaism and Christianity but does suggest the unlikelihood its being the
          cause. This inability to share religious experiences among members of the
          same religious community can be divisive. Therefore it is unlikely that
          Jewish followers of Jesus could co-exist in the same community with
          followers of Jesus not formerly Jewish as postulated by Esler.

          Even after the destruction of the temple when synagogues replaced the
          temple, co-adherents could not share the religious experiences. A person
          believing that Jesus died on the cross as a ransom for his sins can not
          participate in the services for the Day of Atonement. A Jewish follower of
          Jesus who had not accepted the doctrine of the cross, received by Paul
          sometime after the crucifixion and further developed by him, could continue
          to share religious experience with other Jews. According to Lawrence H.
          Schiffman, Judaism did not develop rules that excluded Jewish followers of
          Jesus until the Bar Kokhba revolt early in the second century C.E. The
          believer in the minority segment of the religious community, all of whom are
          followers of Jesus, would experience anomie. The Epistle to Hebrews
          describes such a situation experienced by Jewish followers of Jesus. The
          unknown author of Hebrews offered a solution to these 'orphans' that made
          the doctrine of the theology of the cross palatable to them. He suggested
          that Jesus was the new High Priest.

          This discussion about the divisive impact of the teaching of the doctrine of
          the theology of the cross on Jewish followers of Jesus conclusively
          establishes the need to consider this particular religious belief when
          discussing the possible first century 'social and political circumstances of
          Luke's community.' This discussion demonstrates the unlikelihood that the
          absence of the theology of the cross was not a factor. On the contrary, it
          was the central divisive issue not only between Jewish Christians and
          Judaism but also between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

          Richard H. Anderson
          http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke
        • Ron Price
          ... Richard, So what? Are you implying that every early Christian accepted all the theology of his/her predecessors? The Pastorals have no theology of the
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 5, 2000
            Richard Anderson wrote:

            >I going to address Luke only. My problem with late dating and relative
            >dating to Matt and Mark is this. Luke has no theology of the cross.

            Richard,

            So what?
            Are you implying that every early Christian accepted all the theology
            of his/her predecessors?
            The Pastorals have no theology of the cross either, but that doesn't
            mean we should date them before Mark.
            Luke summarized his theology in Luke 19:10 : "For the Son of man came
            to seek and to save the lost" (RSV) and illustrated this beautifully in
            parables and stories of Jesus. This is arguably perfectly valid without
            a theology of the cross. Perhaps for Luke the salvation was by teaching
            people a better way of life which Jesus had enabled by his resurrection
            and the sending of the Holy Spirit..

            > ..... the sitz im leben needs to address ..... why Luke
            >uses insider phrases such as "second first sabbath" in Luke 6:1

            That's easy, for the best MSS do not have this reading, which was
            regarded as an accidental transcriptional blunder by the majority of the
            UBS committee deciding on the text of UBS3/NA26.

            > and in Acts
            >13:42 the phrase "the between sabbath."

            My old commentary on Acts says "on the next sabbath" is a late use of
            METAXU.

            I note that you have not attempted to give an alternative realistic
            Sitz im Leben for Luke 1:1, let alone any other part of the synoptics.

            Ron Price

            Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

            e-mail: ron.price@...

            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
          • Mike Parsons
            Reply to: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic Sitz im Leben ... i fear i ve jumped into the middle of this discussionw/o following it closely, but i simply wish
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 5, 2000
                       Reply to:   RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic 'Sitz im Leben'
              
              



              Ron Price wrote:
              >Richard Anderson wrote:
              >
              >>I going to address Luke only. My problem with late dating and relative
              >>dating to Matt and Mark is this. Luke has no theology of the cross.

              i fear i've jumped into the middle of this discussionw/o following it closely, but i simply wish to register a dissenting voice to the notion that luke has 'no theology of the cross.' i think david moessner's work ("the christ must suffer/the church must suffer"), among others, has shown how deeply the suffering of Christ figures into luke's theology. it may not be paul's theology of the cross, but it is a theology of the cross nonetheless. i think this notion (e.g., luke has no theology of the cross) is a vestige of older (especially German) redactional studies (conzelmann, et al and the 'theology of glory') which ought to be dispensed with. for what it's worth,
              mikeal parsons

              .



              Mikeal C. Parsons
              Department of Religion
              Baylor University
              Waco, TX 76798
              Voice: 254-710-4591
              FAX: 254-710-3740
            • David Gentile
              Would it be fair to say that Luke contains less (or none?) or Paul s specific theology, when compared to the other two synoptics? ... Dave Gentile Riverside,
              Message 6 of 11 , Oct 5, 2000
                Would it be fair to say that Luke contains less (or none?) or Paul's
                specific theology, when compared to the other two synoptics?

                --------------------------------------------
                Dave Gentile
                Riverside, Illinois
                Tel: 847-286-3624

                GentDave@...
                DGENTIL@...

                --------------------------------------------
                > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/2454/CROSSLUKE.htm
                > i fear i've jumped into the middle of this discussionw/o following it
                > closely, but i simply wish to register a dissenting voice to the notion
                that
                > luke has 'no theology of the cross.' i think david moessner's work ("the
                > christ must suffer/the church must suffer"), among others, has shown how
                > deeply the suffering of Christ figures into luke's theology. it may not be
                > paul's theology of the cross, but it is a theology of the cross
                nonetheless.
                > i think this notion (e.g., luke has no theology of the cross) is a vestige
                > of older (especially German) redactional studies (conzelmann, et al and
                the
                > 'theology of glory') which ought to be dispensed with. for what it's
                worth,
                > mikeal parsons
                >
              • Ron Price
                Richard Anderson wrote, apparently quoting D.Moessner, ... Richard, Agreed. ... But this is nonsense if he means the time of writing. For Luke the historian
                Message 7 of 11 , Oct 6, 2000
                  Richard Anderson wrote, apparently quoting D.Moessner,

                  >The atmosphere, rather, of the Acts is one of an irenic appeal to various
                  >groups within Judaism and the church to unite within the one "hope of
                  >Israe1"

                  Richard,

                  Agreed.

                  > ..... at a time when clearly the break between synagogue and church
                  >was anything but complete. Paul goes to the Temple for a vow, the Jews in
                  >Rome receive Paul's word eagerly (Acts 28:22).

                  But this is nonsense if he means the time of writing. For 'Luke' the
                  historian was describing past events ca. 60 CE. These items say nothing
                  as to whether or not the break was complete at the time when he was
                  writing.

                  > This period of "engaged
                  >disengagement" just prior to 70 C.E. could well reflect the time of Luke's
                  >writing

                  No I don't think it could. Just to mention one reason relevant to this
                  thread: the scenario in which Jerusalem is surrounded by armies (Luke
                  21:20) has an obvious Sitz im Leben in the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE
                  described by Josephus in _Wars of the Jews_, V.9.2 & V.11.4-12. 'Luke'
                  must have been aware of this historical event and worked it into his
                  'prediction' of the destruction of Jerusalem.

                  Ron Price

                  Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                  e-mail: ron.price@...

                  Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                • David Gentile
                  Thank you for the information. This is another piece of good news for my hypothesis. This is how I would think the documents originated, on my hypothesis: If
                  Message 8 of 11 , Oct 6, 2000
                    Thank you for the information. This is another piece of good news for my
                    hypothesis.
                    This is how I would think the documents originated, on my hypothesis:

                    If my Gos-A is non-Greek, this would tend to place its origin with followers
                    of James, I think. Sayings sources may have originated here too, but I doubt
                    either was written down often. I can picture the narrative of the story of
                    Jesus being told first to engage an audience, and the wisdom being taught
                    separately, at the end. They may have even tended to be written on separate
                    documents when they were written.

                    Gos-B and/or Mark, I would attribute to Paul's followers.

                    Proto-Mt(w/Q) would then be Paul's rivals, adding wisdom sayings to the
                    original Greek document.

                    Matthew is a later writer, combining the writings of Paul's camp, and Paul's
                    rivals.

                    Luke would have written his gospel late, but using, a document produced
                    prior to Paul, and a document produced by Paul's rivals. Thus it would be
                    expected to see less of the theology of Paul here.

                    Thank you,
                    --------------------------------------------
                    Dave Gentile
                    Riverside, Illinois
                    Tel: 847-286-3624

                    GentDave@...
                    DGENTIL@...

                    --------------------------------------------
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Richard Anderson <randerson58@...>
                    >
                  • David Conklin
                    ... reflect the time of Luke s writing No I don t think it could. Just to mention one reason relevant to this thread: the scenario in which Jerusalem is
                    Message 9 of 11 , Oct 6, 2000
                      > This period of "engaged disengagement" just prior to 70 C.E. could well
                      reflect the time of Luke's writing

                      No I don't think it could. Just to mention one reason relevant to this
                      thread: the scenario in which Jerusalem is surrounded by armies (Luke 21:20)
                      has an obvious Sitz im Leben in the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE described by
                      Josephus in _Wars of the Jews_, V.9.2 & V.11.4-12. 'Luke' must have been
                      aware of this historical event and worked it into his 'prediction' of the
                      destruction of Jerusalem.


                      This scenario too has its fair share of flaws as noted by Harnack and
                      others. See the relevant comments made in my study on Gospel dates at <a
                      href="http://biblestudy.iwarp.com">my web site</a>.

                      David Conklin
                      _________________________________________________________________________
                      Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

                      Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
                      http://profiles.msn.com.


                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Ron Price
                      ... Richard, Thanks for your off-list reply which has clarified this somewhat. As I understand it now, Barrett was demolishing the view that the sole purpose
                      Message 10 of 11 , Oct 8, 2000
                        I wrote:

                        >> Many modern critics would add that 'Luke' didn't mention the death of
                        >>Paul because he probably died at the instigation of Nero, and to have
                        >>explained this would have involved criticism of the Roman authorities.

                        Richard Anderson replied:

                        >>This criticism view was demolished by
                        >>C.K. Barrett in 1961 when made a profound observation. He said referring to
                        >>Luke-Acts: 'No Roman official would ever have filtered out so much of what
                        >>to him would be theological and ecclesiastical rubbish in order to reach so
                        >>tiny a grain of relevant apology.'[C.K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in
                        >>Recent Study, (London 1961), p.63]

                        Richard,
                        Thanks for your off-list reply which has clarified this somewhat. As I
                        understand it now, Barrett was demolishing the view that the sole
                        purpose of Luke-Acts was to defend Christianity in the eyes of
                        Theophilus, taken to be a Roman official. I have no dispute with Barrett
                        here.
                        All I was arguing was that a *subsidiary* theme in Luke-Acts was the
                        presentation of the Roman authorities in a favourable light. This
                        explains why Paul's mode of death was not described. Barrett's statement
                        in no way demolishes this view.

                        Ron Price

                        Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                        e-mail: ron.price@...

                        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm




                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Richard Anderson
                        Maddox whom I quoted off list would agree with you. He states that there is indeed an unmistakable and surprisingly irenic attitude towards Rome in Luke-Acts
                        Message 11 of 11 , Oct 8, 2000
                          Maddox whom I quoted off list would agree with you. He states that there is
                          indeed an unmistakable and surprisingly irenic attitude towards Rome in
                          Luke-Acts which desrves to be explored and taken into account.

                          I provide this explanation this in my article, Theophilus: A Proposal,
                          published in Evangelical Quarterly and on my webpage.
                          http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke

                          Richard H. Anderson



                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.