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

Re: [Synoptic-L] [synoptic-l] Re: Luke to Theophilus

Expand Messages
  • Tim Reynolds
    ... 1. Surely a single explanation of the entire Lacuna is preferable to ad hoc case-by-case explanations (there are others, as you will know). Koester
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 18, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      on 10/18/03 6:26 AM, Richard Anderson at randerson58@... wrote:

      >
      > on 10/15/03 7:50 PM, Richard Anderson at randerson58@... wrote:
      >
      >> only in Luke does Jesus ... not walk on water.
      >
      > The passage would have occured in the Great Lacuna.
      >
      > Tim Reynolds
      > Long Beach CA
      >
      >
      >
      > The Theophilus as the HP proposal explains the so-called Geat Lucan
      > Omission.
      >
      > Luke, ever the diplomat, was very careful in his Gospel not to describe
      > Jesus as a prophet greater than Moses. Such a notion would have been very
      > offensive to the High Priest. Three examples should illustrate this point.
      > In describing the Transfiguration only Luke indicates that Jesus, Moses and
      > Elijah appeared together in glory. The Lucan Jesus does not walk on water
      > nor does he curse the fig tree causing it to wilt and die. Luke, as part of
      > his irenical presentation certainly, did not want to offend the High Priest.
      >
      > Furthermore, Jesus has acted in complete accordance with the law.
      > As noted by Jacob Jervell, for Luke, the law is not altered and is
      > permanently valid. Therefore, the 'Lucan Omission'is easily explained. The
      > Lucan Jesus does not abrogate the dietary purity law. Mark places the
      > abrogation of the dietary purity law in his gospel to have Jesus provide
      > authority for the table fellowship with Gentiles. Furthermore, the High
      > Priest would have considered such conduct as violating the mosaic laws
      > binding on all Jews. For Luke, God's laws continue in effect for Jews even
      > when they become followers of the Christ. Luke's position accurately
      > reflects the views of the Jewish Christians and the Jerusalem church in its
      > earliest years and is clearly pre-Pauline. It is a position that the High
      > Priest would have found commendable. After all, 'Moses was the first and
      > greatest prophet: all that was communicated to the prophets, who followed
      > him, he had already received. No prophet could contradict him or change or
      > add to what he had proclaimed'.
      >
      > Richard H. Anderson
      >
      >
      >
      > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


      1. Surely a single explanation of the entire Lacuna is preferable to ad hoc
      case-by-case explanations (there are others, as you will know). Koester
      declined to consider my suggestion that "Luke had the flew or something" and
      thereby missed a day -- or two, or three, or four, an addressable question)
      -- of the readings.

      2. How can Luke be "pre-Pauline"? He's syn-Pauline. Our last look at him
      is in Alexandria in 85, presumably obtaining his text of Mk. (This is in a
      citation from Ap. Const. in a footnote in Streeter's Four Gospels; sorry I
      haven't an available copy.)

      Best,

      tim


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Richard Anderson
      Karel Hanhart wrote: I look askance, however, at your identifying the Theophilus of Luke s Gospel and Acts with Theophilus the High Priest from the house of
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 18, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Karel Hanhart wrote:
        I look askance, however, at your identifying the Theophilus of Luke's Gospel
        and Acts with Theophilus the High Priest from the house of Annas. Don't you
        think that in that case Luke owed his readers an explanation why he
        addressed his works to the son of Annas and the brother-in-law of Caiaphas?
        Or are you suggesting that Mt 26,57 and John 18,13 erred in naming Caiaphas?
        Theophilus was a rather common name or epithet. And the names of Caiaphas
        and Annas were naturally in high disrepute in the Christian Judean movement.

        Greetings:

        Luke's first readers knew that Luke made an irenical presentation.
        The Theophilus as the HP proposal states:

        The Jewish polemics against the earliest Christians included the allegation
        that Jesus threatened to destroy the Temple. Stephen's last sermon may have
        been a commentary on this allegation of the Jewish community. Nationalistic
        sentiments were on the rise in Jerusalem. The tumult caused by the
        preaching of Stephen and his subsequent death was the first open hostility
        of the Jewish authorities to the followers of Jesus. In any event after
        Stephen's death, there was a great persecution against the church in
        Jerusalem. This persecution prompted Luke to appeal to Theophilus.

        The early Christians encouraged loyalty to the state and acknowledged its
        authority, even as they acknowledged allegiance to and the sovereignty of
        Jesus Christ. The apologetic writings attempted to show that the new sect
        was part of society and posed no political or social threat. In Luke there
        is no enmity between Christ and Caesar. Joseph registers for the census; tax
        collectors appear in a favorable light; and Pilate finds Jesus innocent of
        political agitation. These passages are not directed at Roman officials but
        toward Theophilus to show that this new Jewish group is not going to bring
        the wrath of the Romans upon Judaism. This was a matter of great concern
        because of the perception that Jewish nationalism, i.e. Zealots and Sciarii,
        was rampant. The new group's disavowal of violence and its proclamation of
        loyalty to the established authorities would have met the approval of the
        High Priest.

        Many pharisees and priests have become Jewish Christians and ardent
        supporters. They in fact are the protectors of the laws of Moses. Thus Luke
        further demonstrates the intensity of the Judaism practiced by the followers
        of Jesus.

        Therefore, Luke, as part of his irenical presentation, avoids confronting
        Theophilus about the miscarriage while at the same time he capitalizes on
        the favorable opinion that the disciples enjoyed in the Temple establishment
        community. This approach by Luke is consistent with his non-confrontational
        style.

        Richard H. Anderson



        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Richard Anderson
        Tim Reynolds wrote: 1. Surely a single explanation of the entire Lacuna is preferable to ad hoc case-by-case explanations (there are others, as you will
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 18, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Tim Reynolds wrote:

          1. Surely a single explanation of the entire Lacuna is preferable to ad hoc
          case-by-case explanations (there are others, as you will know). Koester
          declined to consider my suggestion that "Luke had the flew or something" and
          thereby missed a day -- or two, or three, or four, an addressable question)
          -- of the readings.

          2. How can Luke be "pre-Pauline"? He's syn-Pauline. Our last look at him
          is in Alexandria in 85, presumably obtaining his text of Mk. (This is in a
          citation from Ap. Const. in a footnote in Streeter's Four Gospels; sorry I
          haven't an available copy.)

          Greetings,

          The Theophilus as HP proposal in fact provides a single explanation of the
          so-called Lucan Omission.

          Luke is pre-Pauline because his theology is pre-Pauline. Luke has no
          theology of the cross. The theology of the cross replaces the HP, the
          Temple establishment, the animal sacrificial system and the Day of
          Atonement.

          Richard H. Anderson



          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • randerson58@comcast.net
          Karel, greetings: Q What did this proposed first letter contain? Do you mean an original ... Yes, the first letter is the what we know as the Gospel of Luke;
          Message 4 of 13 , Oct 28, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Karel, greetings:

            Q What did this proposed first 'letter' contain? Do you mean an original
            > draft of the Gospel?. Surely not canonical Luke?
            Yes, the first letter is the what we know as the Gospel of Luke; the letter did not contain this heading.
            > Isn't the end date of the high priest Theophilus uncertain, more likely 40
            > than 41 CE?

            The end date is not essential to the proposal. I do accept the dating assigned by Jeremais and Mason, both of whom state 41 C.E. as the end date.

            Q. At the time of the 'second letter' Theophilus, however, was no longer
            > high priest
            Admitted
            > and therefore could no longer exercise his authority. Logically, this
            > "second letter" (KH Acts?) should have been addressed to Matthias, high
            > priest in
            > 65-67 CE. or at least to both father and son, should not it?

            No, not true. People seeking relief from those in power write the letter to the person whom they believe can provide that relief. Annas was the power beyond the throne even though his son-in-law was the named High Priest. Jonathan succeeded to this role and was the leader of one or more missions to Rome. After the murder of Jonathan, the Proposal states that Theophilus succeeded to this role. Theophilus was a member of the wealthiest Jewish family of his day and a ranking member of the Temple establishment. Even after removal from office the high priest kept his title and retained his authority (Jeremias, 157). His death still had its atoning power (Jeremias, 158; Num. 35:25). Thus even the former High Priest could be addressed as 'Most Excellent.' Both Luke and Paul probably knew Theophilus. Paul received his letters (Acts 9:1) from Jonathan or perhaps Theophilus and probably knew Theophilus.

            > Johanna may well have been a highly placed lady, wife of Chuza, Herod's
            > steward, who became a follower of Jesus (Lk. 8:3). . . . Based on
            > information from his sources Luke may have had good reasons to mention
            > Johanna especially among Jesus'
            > women followers..

            You deny the validity of my proposal and the claims I have asserted yet you fail to address the evidence presented by the existence of the ossuary with the inscription or the double chiasmus centered on Johanna. I am not aware of another chiasmus in the gospels with the name of a person at the center thereof. Johanna is a witness to the resurrection. This is the most important chiastic structure in Luke-Acts. Paul also employed a chiasmus in Colossian 4:7-9 to emphasis the importance of Tychicus whom he sends as minister and servant to encourage their hearts--the very purpose Paul has assigned to himself (Col. 2:2).

            Richard H. Anderson

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Karel Hanhart
            ... Q What did this proposed first letter contain? Do you mean an original ... Richard: Yes, the first letter is the what we know as the Gospel of Luke; the
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
               
               > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: Richard Anderson <randerson58@...>
              > To: <Synoptic-L@...>
              > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:47 AM
              > Subject: [Synoptic-L] re: Luke to Theophilus
              >
              >
              > Karel:
              > Richard,
              > Your interest in the names of the undoubtedly historical women in the
              > open(ed) tomb narratives is commendable and your conclusion  that Luke calls
              > attention to Johanna through the chiastic structure is interesting.  My
              > question refers to the link to the high priest, Theophilus (37-41) and your
              > hypothesis of two different "letters",.written by Luke, to this Theophilus.

               

              Q What did this proposed first 'letter' contain? Do you mean an original

              > draft of the Gospel?. Surely not canonical Luke?

               

              Richard:

              Yes, the first letter is the what we know as the Gospel of Luke; the letter did not contain this heading.

               

              Karel

              > Isn't the end date of the high  priest Theophilus uncertain, more likely 40

              > than 41 CE?

               

              Richard:

              The end date is not essential to the proposal.  I do accept the dating assigned by Jeremais and Mason, both of whom state 41 C.E. as the end date.

               

              Karel:

              Josephus indeed is unclear concerning the dates when Agrippa I deposed and appointed various high priests during his short reign. But research into Herod Agrippa's possible reasons for appointing these high priests àre essential as well as his motivation for the persecution of the apostles(Acts 12). If we knew for sure, the interpretation of difficult and key texts  such as Mark 3,6, 1 Cor 15,5 and Acts 1,26; 2,1ff and 12,1ff would be much easier. Upon his accession to the throne of Judea. Agrippa deposed your Theophilus, who belonged to the house of Annas and appointed Simon Cantheras of the house of Boethus as high priest, thus following the example of Herod the Great who favored Simon Boethus. But then, strangely enough, in quick succession: he again deposed the Boethusian Cantheras and offered the post to Jonathan of the house of Annas. Why, we wonder? And why did this Jonathan decline to accept the high office in a personal letter and why did he suggest to appoint his brother Matthias in stead? (Josephus was privy to the content of the letter). Sometime later Agrippa appointed again a Boethusian, named Elionaios, son of Cantheras. These highly ambiguous actions are probably related to his persecution of the Christian community in Jerusalem viewed in the light of the well known Boethusian / Pharisaic dispute concerning the dating of Pentecost on the festval calendar, discussed in the Mishna.

                  We know for a fact that some time before the destruction of the temple the dating of the First Day of the harvest feast

              (Pentecost) was officially altered. The Boethusians followed the ancient priestly calendar date, namely, the first Sunday after Passover, while the Pharisees held to a fixed date, Nisan 16, the day after Pesach.

                  We also know that the Jesus' community in Jerusalem kept on celebrating the Sunday after Passover thus following the ancient priestly calendar (Lc 23,11, 1 Cor 16,1.8). They celebrated the resurrection of Jesus on that day, and proclaimed his resurrection on the fiftieth day, again a Sunday (Acts 2). We are touching here on the origins of the much later annual celebration of the Sunday replacing in the end the Sabbath. 

                  Thus the Sabbath, Nisan 16, that followed Good Friday was the First Day of the Pentecostal harvest according to the new Pharisaic calendar. The most likely date for the institution of this Pharisaic dating of Shabuoth (Pentecost) appears to be during the reign of Herod Agrippa I. In that case Jonathan's declining to accept the high office may well be due to his reluctance of carrying out Agrippa's plans to persecute the first apostolic community. He would have known his brother Matthias' readiness of  carrying out Herod's wishes. Matthias and Theophilus were, like Caiaphas, of the house of Annas. If we take into account that according to Acts 1,23 a certain Matthias was to replace Judas Iscariot for the apostolic period (he would thus walk walk in Iscariot's footsteps) we have a reasonable solution to the problems posed by these puzzling passages. For in the Synoptic Gospels the burial occurs the very moment that the day of Passover (Good Friday) turned to Silent Saturday (that is Nisan 15 turned to Nisan 16, i.e. the new Pharisaic date for the First Day of the harvest). Combining these two data we may have found an answer to the motivations behind Agrippa's strange behavior in deposing and appointing high priests from the two rival houses - the Boethusians and the Pharisees - in quick succession. We know Herod had James Zebedee decapitated and he put Peter into prison at that time. These may well have been, it seems to me, the historical facts hinted at in Mark 3,6.  

               

               

              Karel's second question:

              Q. At the time of the 'second letter'(in your hypothesis trhe book of Acts) Theophilus, > however, was no longer high priest

               

              Richard:

              Admitted

               

              Karel:

              > and therefore could no longer exercise his authority. Logically, this                > "second letter" should have been addressed to Matthias, high

              > priest in 65-67 CE. or at least to both father and son, should not it?

               

              Richard:

              No, not true. People seeking relief from those in power write the letter to the person whom they believe can provide that relief.  Annas was the power beyond the throne even though his son-in-law was the named High Priest....

               Jonathan succeeded to this role and was the leader of one or more missions to Rome. After the murder of Jonathan, the Proposal states that Theophilus succeeded to this role. Theophilus was a member of the wealthiest Jewish family of his day and a ranking member of the Temple establishment. Even after removal from office the high priest kept his title and retained his authority (Jeremias, 157).  His death still had its atoning power (Jeremias, 158; Num. 35:25). Thus even the former High Priest could be addressed as 'Most Excellent.'  Both Luke and Paul probably knew Theophilus.  Paul received his letters (Acts 9:1) from Jonathan or perhaps Theophilus and probably knew Theophilus.

               

              Karel:

              I fail to see the logic here.  Perhaps Paul received his letters to persecute the Judean Christians from Jonathan or Theophilus (Acts 8:1), but that certainly does not make Theophilus the large hearted high priest to whom one could make an appeal. Luke too states emophatically, like Mark and Matthew that "the high priests" were to reject the Son of Man.

               

              Johanna may well have been a highly placed lady, wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, who became a follower of Jesus (Lk. 8:3). . . . Based on information from his sources Luke may have had good reasons to mention Johanna especially among Jesus' women followers.

               

              Richard: 

              You deny the validity of my proposal and the claims I have asserted yet you fail to address the evidence presented by the existence of the ossuary with the inscription

               

              Karel:

              The ossuary is a weak argument. The name Johanna, the feminine counterpart of the common Hebrew name Johanan (John) was certainly not unusual.  

               

              Richard:

               or the double chiasmus centered on Johanna. 

               

              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. 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, that bitterly persecuted the ecclesia.

                

              cordially,

               

              Karel

               

               

            • Karel Hanhart
              ... Q What did this proposed first letter contain? Do you mean an original ... Richard: Yes, the first letter is the what we know as the Gospel of Luke; the
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 2, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                 
                 > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: Richard Anderson <randerson58@...>
                > To: <Synoptic-L@...>
                > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:47 AM
                > Subject: [Synoptic-L] re: Luke to Theophilus
                >
                >
                > Karel:
                > Your interest in the names of the undoubtedly historical women in the
                > open(ed) tomb narratives is commendable and your conclusion  that Luke calls
                > attention to Johanna through the chiastic structure is interesting.  My
                > question refers to the link to the high priest, Theophilus (37-41) and your
                > hypothesis of two different "letters",.written by Luke, to this Theophilus.

                 

                Q What did this proposed first 'letter' contain? Do you mean an original

                > draft of the Gospel?. Surely not canonical Luke?

                 

                Richard:

                Yes, the first letter is the what we know as the Gospel of Luke; the letter did not contain this heading.

                 

                Karel

                > Isn't the end date of the high  priest Theophilus uncertain, more likely 40

                > than 41 CE?

                 

                Richard:

                The end date is not essential to the proposal.  I do accept the dating assigned by Jeremais and Mason, both of whom state 41 C.E. as the end date.

                 

                Karel:

                Josephus indeed is unclear concerning the dates when he deposed and appointed various high priests during his short reign. But research into Herod Agrippa's possible reasons for appointing these high priests àre essential as well as his motivation for the persecution of the apostles(Acts 12) for interpreting difficult and key texts such as Mark 3,6, 1 Cor 15,5 and Acts 2 and 12. Upon the accession to the throne of Judea Agrippa deposed Theophilus (!) of the house of Annas and appointed Simon Cantheras of the house of Boethus high priest, thus following the example of Herod the Great who favored that house. But then, strangely enough, in quick succession: he again deposed the Boethusian Cantheras and offered the post to Jonathan of the house of Annas. Why, we wonder? And why did this Jonathan decline to accept the high office in a personal letter and why did he suggest to appoint his brother Matthias in stead (Josephus was privy to the content of the letter)? Sometime later Agrippa appointed again a Boethusian, named Elionaios, son of Cantheras. These actions are probably related to his persecution of the Christian community in Jerusalem in light of the well known Boethusian / Pharisaic dispute concerning the dating of Pentecost on the festval calendar.

                    We know for a fact that some time before the destruction of the temple the dating of the First Day of the harvest feast

                (Pentecost) was officially altered. The Boethusians followed the ancient priestly calendar date, namely, the first Sunday after Passover, while the Pharisees held to a fixed date, Nisan 16, the day after Pesach.

                    We also know that the Jesus' community in Jerusalem kept on celebrating the Sunday after Passover according to the ancient priestly calendar. They the resurrection of Jesus on that day, and proclaimed the resurrection on the fiftieth day, again a Sunday (Acts 2). the origins of the later annual celebration of the Sunday. 

                 

                But according to the new Pharisaic calendar, the preceding Sabbath, Nisan 16, was the First Day of the Pentecostal harvest. The most likely date for the institution of the Pharisaic dating of Shabuoth (Pentecost) appears to be during the reign of Herod Agrippa I. In that case Jonathan's declining top accept this office may be due to his reluctance of carrying out Agrippa's plans to persecute the first apostolic community, while Matthiuas of the house of Annas seemed ready to carry out Herod's wishes. If we take into account that according to Acts 1,23 a certain Matthias was to replace Judas Iscariot for the apostolic period (and thus walk in Iscariots footsteps) we have a reasonable solution of the problems posed by these puzzling passages. For in the Synoptic Gospels the burial occurs the very moment that the day of Passover (Good Friday) turned to Silent Saturday (that is Nisan 15 turned to Nisan 16, i.e. the new Pharisaic dat for the First Day of the harvest). Combining these two data we may have found an answer to the motivations behind Agrippa's strange behavior in deposing and appointing high priests from the two rival houses - the Boethuisians and the Pharisees - in quick succession. We know Herod had James Zebedee decapitated and he put Peter into prison at that time. These were,it seems me, the historical facts hinted at in Mark 3,6.  

                 

                 

                Karel's second question:

                Q. At the time of the 'second letter' Theophilus, however, was no longer

                > high priest

                 

                Richard:

                Admitted

                 

                Karel:

                > and therefore could no longer exercise his authority. Logically, this

                > "second letter" (KH Acts?) should have been addressed to Matthias, high

                > priest in 65-67 CE. or at least to both father and son, should not it?

                 

                Richard:

                No, not true. People seeking relief from those in power write the letter to the person whom they believe can provide that relief.  Annas was the power beyond the throne even though his son-in-law was the named High Priest....

                 Jonathan succeeded to this role and was the leader of one or more missions to Rome. After the murder of Jonathan, the Proposal states that Theophilus succeeded to this role. Theophilus was a member of the wealthiest Jewish family of his day and a ranking member of the Temple establishment. Even after removal from office the high priest kept his title and retained his authority (Jeremias, 157).  His death still had its atoning power (Jeremias, 158; Num. 35:25). Thus even the former High Priest could be addressed as 'Most Excellent.'  Both Luke and Paul probably knew Theophilus.  Paul received his letters (Acts 9:1) from Jonathan or perhaps Theophilus and probably knew Theophilus.

                 

                Karel:

                I fail to see the logic here.  Perhaps Paul received his letters from Jonathan or Theophilus (Acts 8:1), but that certainly does not make Theophilus the large hearted high priest to whom one could make an appeal. Luke too states emophatically, like Mark and Matthew that "the high priests" were to reject the Son of Man.

                 

                > Johanna may well have been a highly placed lady, wife of Chuza, Herod's

                > steward, who became a follower of Jesus (Lk. 8:3). . . . Based on

                > information from his sources Luke may have had good reasons to mention

                > Johanna especially among Jesus'

                > women followers..

                 

                Richard: 

                You deny the validity of my proposal and the claims I have asserted yet you fail to address the evidence presented by the existence of the ossuary with the inscription

                 

                Karel:

                The ossuary is a weak argument. The name Johanna, the feminine counterpart of the common Hebrew name Johanan (John) was certainly not unusual.  

                 

                Richard:

                 or the double chiasmus centered on Johanna. 

                 

                Karel:

                 

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

                  

                cordially yours,

                 

                Karel

                 

                 

              • John Lupia
                Karel: The chiasmus construction is indeed interesting and important, as I wrote before. However, the difficulties of equating Luke s Theophilus (a honorific
                Message 7 of 13 , Nov 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  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.

                  Dear Karel:

                  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?

                  The early dating for Acts as a whole is obvious.
                  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, that bitterly persecuted the ecclesia.


                  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.

                  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@...
                • Richard H. Anderson
                  Karel Hanhart, greetings: Karel wrote: I fail to see the logic here. Perhaps Paul received his letters to persecute the Judean Christians from Jonathan or
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 3, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Karel Hanhart, greetings:

                    Karel wrote:  I fail to see the logic here.  Perhaps Paul received his letters to persecute the Judean Christians from Jonathan or Theophilus (Acts 8:1), but that certainly does not make Theophilus the large hearted high priest to whom one could make an appeal. Luke too states emophatically, like Mark and Matthew that "the high priests" were to reject the Son of Man.
                    Karel: 
                    Johanna may well have been a highly placed lady, wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, who became a follower of Jesus (Lk. 8:3). . . . Based on information from his sources Luke may have had good reasons to mention Johanna especially among Jesus' women followers.
                    Richard Anderson 
                     You deny the validity of my proposal and the claims I have asserted yet you fail to address the evidence presented by the existence of the ossuary with the inscription
                    Karel:
                      The ossuary is a weak argument. The name Johanna, the feminine counterpart of the common Hebrew name Johanan (John) was certainly not unusual.   

                      Richard:  
                     or the double chiasmus centered on Johanna.  
                    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. 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, that bitterly persecuted the ecclesia. 

                    Karel,
                     
                    When Theophilus: A Proposal” was first published as an article in Evangelical Quarterly the most common objection raised was that there was no evidence apart from Josephus of the existence of the High Priest Theophilus.  The discovery of the ossuary of Johanna, granddaughter of the High Priest Theophilus and the publication of the archaeological findings puts this objection to rest.
                     
                    You sem to think it was illogical for Luke to write, let alone make an irenical presentation to Theophilus, the High Priest.  Millions of Americans wrote to Franklin and/or Eleanor during the seventeen years they lived in the White House.  These letters are only now beginning to be analyzed.  They no doubt paint a rich mosaic of the dreams and hopes of Americans during the Great Depression years.  Were these letters illogical?
                     
                    A communication addressed to the High Priest is not preposterous. Justin Martyr's First Apology was addressed to the Roman Emperor. The recently published Halakhic Letter [miqsat ma'ase ha-Torah] known as MMT was sent to the High Priest by the Dead Sea Scroll Community.  Were these letters illogical?

                    You assert that the argument with respect to the ossuary is a weak argument because Johanna is a common name.  You however have not probably considered the argument.  Although Johanna is a common name (the fifth most common female Jewish name; but only represents 3.24% of the total sample), it appears only in the Gospel of Luke and nowhere else in the NT. The Aramaic variant of the name is Yohanah. Barag and Flusser gives three examples of Yohanah: one published by Sukenik, another by Puech and third by Benoit which are identical with the Yohanah found in Luke 8:3 and 24:10.  It also appears on an ossuary identifying Johanna in Aramaic as the granddaughter of Theophilus the High priest.  Joanna in Aramaic is not a common name.

                    Theophilus is a rare Jewish male name appearing only three times in a collection of 2040 male Jewish names from 300 BCE to 300 CE.  See lexicon by Tal Illan.  More importantly Johanna appears in combination with Theophilus in only two places, the Gospel of Luke and the ossuary.  However the two name combination of Johanna and Theophilus appearing together on the ossuary and also appearing in the Gospel of Luke when considered together with the rarity of the Theophilus name in Palestine is strong circumstantial evidence that the proposed identification is correct. The strength of the two name combination’ is shown by the fact that J.T. Milik used a two name ossuary inscribed with "Alexander son of Simon", two admittedly common names in Palestine and the whole context of the inscriptions to propose that the tomb in question belongs to the family of him who helped Jesus to carry the cross.  Therefore this combination of Johanna in Aramaic and Theophilus is highly significant and when this evidence is combined with the double chiasmus in Luke 24 which you have acknowledged to be "indeed interesting and important", the conclusion is escapeable that Theophilus is the High Priest and Johanna is his granddaughter.
                     

                    Luke made an irenical presentation.  What was the attitude of Jesus toward the Sadducees?

                    According to Mark (12:18-27), Jesus said to the Sadducees: "How wrong you are! And do you know why? it is because you don't know Scriptures, or God's power. You are completely wrong!"

                    Matthew's Jesus (22:23-33) says some of the same: "How wrong you are! It is because you don't know the Scriptures, or God's power." Not found are the phrases, "And do you know why?", and the emphatic, dogmatic, "You are completely wrong!" is also missing.

                     

                    Luke (20:27-40) records none of these put downs. How come? The Theophilus Proposal provides us with an answer.  Luke was writing to Theophilus, the High Priest, a Sadducee!

                     

                    Richard H. Anderson

                     

                     

                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                        
                     
                  • Karel Hanhart
                    ... From: John Lupia To: Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Luke to Theophilus
                    Message 9 of 13 , 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@...
                    • Karel Hanhart
                      ... From: Richard H. Anderson To: Karel Hanhart ; Synoptic-L Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 6:33 PM Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Luke to Theophilus
                      Message 10 of 13 , Nov 4, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 6:33 PM
                        Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Luke to Theophilus

                        ..............
                         
                        Richard:
                         
                        When Theophilus: A Proposal” was first published as an article in Evangelical Quarterly the most common objection raised was that there was no evidence apart from Josephus of the existence of the High Priest Theophilus. 
                         
                        Karel:
                         
                        The major part of our knowledge of Jewish history of the first century is from Josephus. This does not make the name of this high priest exceptional. However, he furnishes very little "evidence" on the followers of John the Baptist and the christian Judean movement, certainly not an insignificant, minor movement. It could easily have been available if Josephus had been a little more forthcoming. 
                         
                        Richard:
                         
                        You sem to think it was illogical for Luke to write, let alone make an irenical presentation to Theophilus, the High Priest.  Millions of Americans wrote to Franklin and/or Eleanor during the seventeen years they lived in the White House. 
                         
                        Karel:
                         
                        An inept comparison. Think it through. You wouldnot want to compare Franklin Roosevelt with Caiaphas or Annas. Nor the Gospel of Luke with the letters to the president of a modern democracy of the 20th century like the USA. It was written on a handwritten copy in Greek for an irenical presentation of the Jesus' movement. Do you seriously consider that Theophilus needed this information because he was unaware and thus ignorant of the aims of this movement?  
                         
                        Richard:
                        You assert that the argument with respect to the ossuary is a weak argument because Johanna is a common name.  You however have not probably considered the argument.  Although Johanna is a common name (the fifth most common female Jewish name; but only represents 3.24% of the total sample), it appears only in the Gospel of Luke and nowhere else in the NT. The Aramaic variant of the name is Yohanah. Barag and Flusser gives three examples of Yohanah: one published by Sukenik, another by Puech and third by Benoit which are identical with the Yohanah found in Luke 8:3 and 24:10.  It also appears on an ossuary identifying Johanna in Aramaic as the granddaughter of Theophilus the High priest.  Joanna in Aramaic is not a common name.
                         
                        Karel:
                         
                        Women were not much discussed in public at the time.
                         
                         
                        cordially yours,
                         
                        Karel

                         
                      • John Lupia
                        ... Dear Karel: So then, are we to understand by this remark that there are no hard data that imperil, prevent, or dismiss Theophilus the High Priest as the
                        Message 11 of 13 , Nov 5, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- Karel Hanhart <k.hanhart@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > ----- 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!!
                          >

                          Dear Karel:

                          So then, are we to understand by this remark that
                          there are no hard data that imperil, prevent, or
                          dismiss Theophilus the High Priest as the one
                          identified by Luke in his Preface, and that the
                          canonical version of Luke dates to and was written
                          when Theophilus was in office AD 37-41?



                          > > The early dating for Acts as a whole is obvious.
                          >
                          > Is it that "obvious"?

                          My comment was in context of the early dating being
                          problematic since the later chapters (beyond 11)
                          clearly date to AD post 41. Hence: "The early dating
                          for Acts as a whole is obvious." meaning that it is
                          onviously difficult to take Acts as a whole and date
                          it to the reign of Theophilus.



                          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.

                          Yes, agreed on the basis of the later chapters that
                          clearly assign the Roman pontificate to St. Paul (the
                          first successor of St. Peter signifying he was dead)
                          confirmed by his epistle to the Romans, an epistle
                          that could only have been written by the Roman pontiff
                          since he alone has jurisdiction and protocol allows
                          only him to address the ecclesia Romana.


                          The theory was still
                          > defended by the late Dutch
                          > scholar G. Bouwan.

                          Yes.

                          However, Luke according to most
                          > scholars wrote his Acts
                          > m,uch later.


                          You need to step back and see the big picture that
                          reveals why this is viable in a field dominated by
                          Markan priority with conditional logical syllogisms
                          built one atop another "if then" followed by "if then"
                          based on nothing but conjecture and devoid of "hard
                          data" where suggestions reigns supreme as if they were
                          all facts. Honestly, Markan priority has enjoyed two
                          centuries of prolific research and study with no
                          solution to the Synoptic Problem anywhere in sight.
                          Does not it styand to reason and common sense that an
                          altogether different approach if given the same rigor,
                          interest, time and effort might solve the Synoptic
                          Problem in less than a decade? This will be proven to
                          be the case following Lukan priority once researchers
                          begin to see the enormous implications that result
                          following this line of inquiry. Consequently, I
                          predict that the Synoptic Problem will be considered
                          to be resolved by the majority before 2013.


                          [snip]


                          > 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.


                          Agreed. Why are you so articulate about the current
                          status questionis re: Lukan priority as it has been
                          presented thus far yet do not speak critically
                          likewise on the same grounds to Markan priority which
                          has absolutely not a single shred of evidence. Yet
                          Lukan priority does offer the opportunity to tie in
                          objective historical data with the text. Though there
                          can never be any proof in the scientific sense there
                          shall certainly exist a plethora of highly tenable
                          correlates like: Theophilus (including the ossuary),
                          Thallus, etc. that link the text to a specific early
                          period AD 37-51 and suggest rather vigorously when a
                          full array of evidence is delivered that Luke's Gospel
                          dates to this early period rather than the evidence
                          being merely circumstantial, coincidence, or open to
                          other interpretations that support radically different
                          explanations.


                          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.

                          Yes I agree that caution in this case is prudent. I am
                          unsure when St. Pter died. Legends have colored the
                          way most scholars, especially Catholics have read
                          history. The example I gave earlier above shows that
                          St. Paul appears to have been St. Peter's first
                          successor (not Linus according to legend) yet even
                          Catholic historians are blinded to this by the
                          legends.

                          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!?
                          Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
                          http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Richard H. Anderson
                          Karel ... he was unaware and thus ignorant of the aims of this movement? No. People do not make irenical presentations because someone needs the information
                          Message 12 of 13 , Nov 6, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Karel
                             
                            >Do you seriously consider that
                            Theophilus needed this information because he was unaware and thus ignorant of the aims of this movement?  
                             
                            No. People do not make irenical presentations because someone needs the information because they are ignorant. Rather, it is because, it is
                             
                            designed to promote peace; pacific; conciliatory; peaceful
                             

                            Luke has written an irenical appeal addressed to the High Priest explaining and reporting to him the fulfillment of numerous prophecies. Luke proclaims the significance of Jesus' words and deeds in the context of Old Testament prophecy, which argument would only be impressive to an audience that already believed and respected the text as sacred. Only a Jew would listen to an argument based on the fulfillment of the promises to David through Jesus the Messiah. The Jewish expectation for a coming Davidic King was particularly prominent among Palestinian Jews. Jesus' royal Davidic status would not impress a Gentile, but the High Priest would entertain such an argument.

                            In a different context, C.J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, (Tubingen 1989), 185, stated in part: "...and an essentially eirenical work like Acts does not deny the sharpness of the present issue." Other writers including F.C. Baur, (1860) and D.P. Moessner, The Lord of the Banquet, (Minneapolis, 1989), 315, have noted the Lucan irenic qualities.
                             

                            >An inept comparison.
                            No, actually it is not.  In looking at why people write letters, we do not examine the character of the recipient. You suggest the writing to Theophilus the HP is absurd. I gave examples modern and contemporary to Theophilus that suggest not. Look at my second other exampples.
                             
                            >Women were not much discussed in public at the time.
                             
                            This comment is not responsive. The fact of the matter is that Johanna is at the center of a chiasmus. 
                             

                            The proposed chiastic structure has not been previously recognized by scholars because two of the criteria set forth by Blomberg would be violated. The proposed chiasmus must solve a literary problem and the center of the chiasmus must be worthy of that position. Danker notes that "Luke rugged syntax in v. 9 troubled copyists . . . ."

                             

                            In this instance certain facts not known to scholars precluded the identification of Luke 24:8-11 as a chiasmus. These facts have now been presented and these facts now demonstrate that the chiasmus created by Luke is intentional. As noted by Long, unnecessary words were added to create the structure. Furthermore Johanna, the granddaughter of most excellent Theophilus and a witness who proclaimed the resurrection is worthy of the vertex.

                             

                            Richard H. Anderson

                             
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.