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

[Synoptic-L] re: Luke to Theophilus

Expand Messages
  • Richard Anderson
    Greetings: I would like to suggest that The Theophilus as HP proposal can assist in identifying the proper focal point of the origins of Christianity. It
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 19, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings:

      I would like to suggest that The Theophilus as HP proposal can assist in
      identifying the proper focal point of the "origins" of Christianity. It
      ought to be the difference between the MT and LXX in that the authors of the
      gospels appeared to have used the LXX. However the LXX in Isa. 53:9a, 10-11b
      rewrites the outcome of the servant's suffering excising his sacificial
      death and any notion of vicarious atonement. Paul trained in the Hebrew MT
      was certainly aware of the differences between the MT and LXX. One synoptic
      writer used the LXX and consistent therewith has no atonement theology. Luke
      has no equivalent of the ransom saying (Mk 10:45; Matt 20:28) nor of
      Matthew's connection of Jesus' covenant blood with the remission of sins (Mt
      26:28). [I accept the conclusions of Bart Ehrman that verses {Lk 22:19b-20}
      were added by second century scribes.] The other two synoptic writers also
      used the LXX but influenced by Paul included atonement theology. This is the
      gospel message and appropriately there are 11 instances of EUAGGELION (4 in
      Matthew, 7 in Mark, 0 in Luke) in the synoptics. Eusebius states: "It is
      actually suggested that Paul was in the habit of referring to Luke's gospel
      whenever he said, as if writing of some Gospel of his own: 'According to my
      gospel.' Rom. 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim. 2:18."

      Luke was writing at a time when the tradition was not yet authoritative to a
      person who expected Luke would follow the two witness rule and the Jewish
      style of writing with its chiastic structure. Luke has no institutional
      authority. Luke emphasizes the centrality of Jerusalem because ideas have
      to be expressed in terms that are intelligible to their audience. The
      approach works because Luke was known to Theophilus.

      Meade asked the question, "Why do none of the gospel writers identify
      themselves, though at least in some cases (Luke 1:1-4; John 21:24) they are
      well known to their readers? Because it is the gospel of Jesus Christ (Mark
      1:1), and no other attribution is needed. Once again attribution is linked
      with (authoritative) tradition." That the word 'euaggelion' did not appear
      in Luke and John is evidence of their early publication and the fact that
      'euaggelion' did not become associated with the writings we now know as the
      gospels until some time after the publication of the first two books.

      Richard H. Anderson
      Wallingford PA



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 10/19/2003 3:13:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... One should distinguish here, though, between Matthew s usage, which is never absolute, and
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 19, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 10/19/2003 3:13:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, randerson58@... writes:


        This is the
        gospel message and appropriately there are 11 instances of EUAGGELION (4 in
        Matthew, 7 in Mark, 0 in Luke) in the synoptics.


        One should distinguish here, though, between Matthew's usage, which is never absolute, and Mark's which frequently is. See also the typically Pauline Mk 1:15c, which has no Mathean parallel. Luke does also use the term in Acts (15:7 and 20:24). In Acts 20:24, Paul is speaking, and refers to the "Gospel of God's grace", which would certainly well describe the Gospel of Luke, particularly special Luke.

        Eusebius states: "It is actually suggested that Paul was in the habit of referring to Luke's gospel whenever he said, as if writing of some Gospel of his own: 'According to my gospel.' Rom. 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim. 2:18."


        Some Church Fathers also saw a reference to Luke and his gospel in 2 Cor 8:18.

          That the word 'euaggelion' did not appear
        in Luke and John is evidence of their early publication and the fact that
        'euaggelion' did not become associated with the writings we now know as the
        gospels until some time after the publication of the first two books.



        It is interesting that the opening sentence in Mark is the closest thing in the canonical Gospel texts themselves to the second century titles that became standard in the manuscripts. I would hesitate, though, to take the absence of the term EUAGGELION in Luke as an argument of significant force that Luke antedates Matthew. I think it is possible to show that Luke intentionally reserved mention in his Gospel of some elements that he deemed historically more appropriate for his second volume. And Matthew's usage is closely tied to his cited Isaian references (rather than to typical ecclesiastical usage), even though those LXX texts used the verbal cognate of EUAGGELION rather than the substantive itself. This verbal cognate, of course, also occurs quite frequently in Luke.

        Leonard Maluf
        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
        Weston, MA
      • Richard Anderson
        Karel Hanhart wrote Theophilus was a rather common name or epithet. The proper question is not whether it is a common name but whether or not it is a common
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 20, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Karel Hanhart wrote
           
          Theophilus was a rather common name or epithet. 
           
          The proper question is not whether it is a common name but whether or not it is a common name among Jewish persons holding a position of rank and wealth in the Roman world.
           

          The story of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke resonates with Jewish beliefs concerning God's plan of salvation and the promised coming of the messianic deliver. The text of the gospel is grounded in the rich diversity of Jewish messianic thought which characterizes the second Temple period. The key word in the two preceding sentences is Jewish.

          Gerhardsson noted that "Luke is very much dependent upon Palestinian tradition." Adolf Schatter concluded that the text's character together other indicators point to the author's provenance from the Jewish church. Johannes Weiss in 1892 made what was then considered a radical statement. Weiss recognized that ideas have to be expressed in terms that are intelligible to their audience. Consequently, we must infer that ideas were expressed in terms intelligible to most excellent Theophilus who was most certainly a Jewish man of rank and wealth. The establishment of this inference as a fact is one of the purposes of this article.

          The use of such salutation has been the reason most scholars would conclude that Theophilus was a real person holding some position of rank and wealth in the Roman world.

          Is there Jewish man of rank and wealth in the first century with whom the ideas expressed in the Gospel would resonate? Although there are a few scholars who say Theophilus means "lover of God" and by using this term Luke was addressing an imaginary person who was representative of the type person to whom the gospel was addressed. However, it is unlikely an ancient author such as Saint Luke would affix the salutation "most excellent" to such a person. The use of such salutation has been the reason most scholars would conclude that Theophilus was a real person holding some position of rank and wealth in the Roman world.

          Since proposals for the publication of the Gospel of Luke could range from as early as 40 C.E. to as late as 140 C.E. and the addressee could be located anywhere in the known Roman world of this time period, the search for Theophilus is limited to this time frame and geographical area. In this time period and geographical area, is there a known person of rank and/or wealth bearing this name for whom the salutation "most excellent" would be appropriate? We know from a published study of 2040 Jewish male names of the first century collected from the Second Temple and Mishnaic periods (330 B.C.E. to 200 C.E.) derived from the various sources relevant to the period, the writings of the historical Josephus, the New Testament, and rabbinic literature, as well as inscriptions and papyri that the name "Theophilus" appears three times making this a rare name. All of the reported examples in this study refer to the same person. According to Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, a man named Theophilus served a High Priest from 37 to 41 A.D. Theophilus as High Priest was a member of the most prominent and wealthiest family in Palestine. In addition to the appearance of the name in the writings of Josephus, we have one other example that conclusively establishes the historical existence of Theophilus the High Priest.

          Barag and Flusser have published in the Israel Exploration Journal the inscription appearing on the limestone ossuary clearly identifying the bones therein as Yehohanah, granddaughter of the High Priest, Theophilus.
          The Aramaic variant of the name is Yohanah. Barag and Flusser give three examples of Yohanah: one published by Sukenik, another by Puech and the third by Benoit which are identical with the Yohanah found in Luke 8:3 and 24:10.

          The total of all Jewish women in Palestine known by name up to this day from the Second Temple and Mishnaic periods (330 B.C.E. to 200 C.E.) amounts to 247. This total is derived from the various sources relevant to the period, the writings of the historical Josephus, the New Testament, and rabbinic literature, as well as inscriptions and papyri. . . . The eight occurrences of Johanna identified in the study, including the example provided by Barag and Flusser and the examples found in Luke 8:3 and 24:10, represent 3.24% of the total sample. Johanna is the fifth most common name represented in the study.

          The three occurrences of Theophilus identified in the study of Jewish men's names, excluding the example provided by Barag and Flusser and the examples found in Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1, represent .01% of the total sample of 2040 gathered from the same sources utilized for the study of Jewish women's names also conducted by Ilan. Theophilus is not a common name represented in the study. When Theophilus is combined with Johanna, the identification is confirmed and a reason is provided as to why Luke alone among the gospel writers included Johanna in his Gospel. Johanna could easily have informed Jesus of the splendid style in which Herod Antipas and his court officials lived. Johanna must have been one of the eyewitnesses available to Luke as a source for his Herodian material.

          Richard H. Anderson
        • Richard Anderson
          Professor C. Frank Jacks, greetings You wrote: - how do we know that Luke s Theophilus was a Jew? . . . . Clarification and comments would be greatly
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 21, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment

            Professor C. Frank Jacks, greetings

            You wrote: - how do we know that Luke's "Theophilus" was a Jew? . . . . Clarification and comments would be greatly appreciated.

            If we were to start fresh an investigation of the book we today know as the Gospel of Luke, the first two questions would have to be, who is most excellent Theophilus and why was this document addressed to him? The only first century external evidence to the identity of Theophilus exist in the writings of Josephus announcing his appointment as HP and subsequent removal and one ossuary bearing an inscription identifying Johanna as the granddaughter of Theophilus the HP. There are no other external written clues. Inasmuch as the Gospel of Luke also mentions Johanna in two separate pericopes and the other gospels fail to mention this remarkable woman, one has to wonder if most excellent Theophilus is the same person as theophilus the High Priest. Since Theophilus is a rare Jewish male name, see study by Tal Ilan, the conclusion has to be, YES especially considering the linkage to Johanna and the prominent role Johanna plays in the center of a chiasmus introducing the Emmaus pericope contained in a chiastic structure.

            Secondly, every person named in the first two chapters is not only Jewish but also connected to the Temple or visits the Temple. The Temple is of course the place of employment of the High Priest. Jerusalem and the Temple continue to be the focal point throughout this book. Third, Jewish issues predominant. The issues of the day of the later part of the Second Temple period feature questions about the resurrection, circumcision and the boundary markers of Judaism as well as questions of theology relating to almsgiving, repentance, angels and related issues all featured prominently in Luke-Acts. For instance only Luke tells us of the circumcision of the Messiah. Luke's theology of repentance is very Jewish. The understanding of Jewish terminology such as "son of David" and 'son of man" is important.

            Thirdly, Luke draws upon the Septuagint, a Jewish book written by Jews to Jews. Luke begins his Gospel immediately following the prologue with Zechariah the priest in the Jerusalem Temple offering incense in the Holy Place while the people prayed in the court yard. That scene is patterned on scenes of the announcement of the birth of Old Testament agents, such as Isaac, Samson and Samuel, in the history of God's people. The descriptions of supernatural happenings are associated with important figures in Jewish history. The angels' appearance and their hymns of praise are very much a part of the fabric of Hebrew thought for the messianic idea. The anticipation that the birth of the messiah would be heralded by the angels was by no means foreign to popular Jewish thinking in the first century. The baptism of Jesus as told by Luke recalls the experience of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel. John the Baptist baptizes Jesus. The heavens open. The dramatic descent of the dove accompanies the miraculous event. God has spoken; Jesus is made known and his work begins. Luke tells then us that Jesus abstained from both food and water during his fast of forty days. This report of a miraculous event is made meaningful for a Jewish audience who knows God made it possible for both Moses and Elijah to sustain them in their forty day fast. The temptations follow the fast. Only a Jewish audience would have known that Luke is alluding to Ex. 34:28 and 1 Kings 19:8 and that a full appreciation of the temptations must be based upon Deut. 6-8. The story of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke resonates with Jewish beliefs concerning God's plan of salvation and the promised coming of the messianic deliver. The text of the gospel is grounded in the rich diversity of Jewish messianic thought which characterizes the second Temple period. The key word in the two preceding sentences is Jewish.

            Fourthly, Gerhardsson noted that "Luke is very much dependent upon Palestinian tradition." Adolf Schatter concluded that the text's character together other indicators point to the author's provenance from the Jewish church. Johannes Weiss in 1892 made what was then considered a radical statement. Weiss recognized that ideas have to be expressed in terms that are intelligible to their audience. Luke-Acts has been shaped by the style and techniques of the historical works of the Old Testament and perhaps post Old Testament Jewish histories such as 1 Maccabees and thus was written in a format familiar to the HP. Bertil Gartner concludes the writings of Luke most resembles the first two books of Maccabees which ". . . have certain features in common with Hellenistic historical writings; though regarded as a whole as part of a typically Jewish tradition."

            Fifthly, most scholars agree that Theophilus is a real person and because of the his salutation, a man of rank and wealth in the Roman empire. In this time period the High Priest was very wealthly and the highest Jewish official in Judea. Theophilus as the son of Annas was a member of the wealthiest family in Palestine. He was also a Roman appointee. Thus the saluatation is proper.

            My various postings of the past week include additional evidence that the ideas were expressed in terms intelligible to most excellent Theophilus who was most certainly a Jewish man of rank and wealth.

            Richard H. Anderson

          • Richard Anderson
            Professor C. Frank Jacks, greetings You wrote: - how do we know that Luke s Theophilus was a Jew? . . . . Clarification and comments would be greatly
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 21, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
               

              Professor C. Frank Jacks, greetings

              You wrote: - how do we know that Luke's "Theophilus" was a Jew? . . . . Clarification and comments would be greatly appreciated.

               

              Secondly, every person named in the first two chapters is not only Jewish but also connected to the Temple or visits the Temple.

              Correction: I do not mean to include persons named for dating purposes such as Augustus and Quirinius.

              My point simply is that Theophilus is Jewish.

              Richard H. Anderson
            • Richard Anderson
              Professor C. Frank Jacks, greetings: You Wrote: Simply put, you offer as an hypothesis that the Theophilus mention twice in Luke-Acts is the same as the one
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 23, 2003
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Professor C. Frank Jacks, greetings:

                You Wrote: "Simply put, you offer as an hypothesis that the "Theophilus"
                mention twice in Luke-Acts is the same as the one mentioned by Josephus and
                thus is the Jew who served as high priest from 37 - 41 A.D."

                I think it is important to note that there is also an ossuary (bone box)
                with an inscription thereon identifying the bones as those of Johanna,
                granddaughter of Theophilus, the High Priest, details of which were
                published in IEJ. Secondly the names, Johanna and Theophilus, only appears
                in the Gospel of Luke. Thirdly, the second mention in Luke 24:8-11 appears
                in a chiastic structure. Without this additional information there would be
                no way to connect the Theophilus and Johanna of Luke and the Theophilus
                mentioned by Josephus with the ossuary.

                What role did chiastic structures play with respect to an author such as
                Luke? It permitted Luke to access very early tradition which was structured
                in such a way as to facilitate accurate transmission. This is particularly
                true of the material contained in the early chapters of Luke. In considering
                whether or not Jesus is the creator of the parables it is important to
                remember what Matthew Black said: 'Jesus did not commit anything to writing,
                but by His use of poetic form and language He ensured that His sayings would
                not be forgotten.' In addition, the use of chiastic structures permitted
                Luke to organize his material consistent with the thought process of the
                first recipient.

                With this background, one can now understand the significance of the
                chiastic structure of Luke 24:8-11 and 24:13-35. The importance of Johanna
                is revealed through a literary device, the chiasmus. Lee Dahn not only noted
                that Luke 24:8-11 is a chiasmus but also that Johanna is the center and
                climax of the chiasmus. This point is highlighted by the chiastic pattern of
                the text itself. Recall that a chiasmus is a literary device that arranges
                words and ideas into two parallel and inverted passages, with an odd member
                placed at the vertex, where the two passages intersect (ABCB'A'). The odd
                seemingly out of place word or phrase found at the vertex (X) helps the
                reader locate the passage's principal idea. Consider verses 8-11 in this
                light:

                A they remembered his words
                B the Eleven
                C the others/rest (same Gk as C')
                D Mary Mag.
                X Joanna
                D' Mary, mother of James
                C' the other/rest of the women (see Gk of C)
                B' the Apostles
                A' they did not believe these words

                Johanna was previously identified in Lk 8:3 as the wife of Chuza, a steward
                of Herod's. Johanna is also the center of Lk. 8:3 and is provided "the most
                specific description, the content of which seems particularly important." Of
                course, most excellent Theophilus, the High Priest knows that Johanna is his
                granddaughter. Earlier, it was stated that Luke has made Johanna one of his
                eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Professor Fred Long has pointed out the
                seeming odd or repetitive narrative material included by the author to
                create the chiasmus: "and the other women with them." The significance of
                this proclamation is further heightened by the chiastic structure contained
                in Luke 24:13-35 that immediately follows this one.

                A That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about
                seven miles from Jerusalem (13), and talking with each other about all these
                things that had happened (14).

                B While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near
                and went with them (15).

                C But their eyes were kept from recognizing him (16).

                D And he said to them, "What is this conversation which you are holding with
                each other as you walk?" And they stood still, looking sad (17).

                E Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, "Are you the only visitor
                to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these
                days?" And he said to them, "What things?" (18-19a)

                F And they said to him, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet
                mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief
                priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified
                him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides
                all this, it is now the third day since this happened. (19b-21)

                G Moreover, some women of our company amazed us.(22a)

                X They were at the tomb early in the morning and did not find his body; and
                they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said
                that he was alive. (b-23)

                G' Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the
                women had said; but him they did not see." (24)

                F' And he said to them, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all
                that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should
                suffer these things and enter into his glory?" (25-26)

                E' And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in
                all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (27)

                D' So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to
                be going further, but they constrained him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is
                toward evening and the day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with
                them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and
                broke it, and gave it to them. (28-30)

                C' And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out
                of their sight. (31)

                B' They said to each other, "Did not our hearts burn within us while he
                talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?" (32)

                A' And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found
                the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, "The
                Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" Then they told what had
                happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the
                bread. (33-35)

                This second chiasmus detailing the experiences of the Two Men on the Road to
                Emmaus is like the example provided by Bailey in that the women and in
                particular Johanna are at the climax of the chiasmus in the first stanza and
                featured prominently in G, X and G' of the second stanza.

                Luke 24:8-11 forms a chiasmus that when read in conjunction with Luke
                24:13-35, another chiasmus, makes Johanna a witness to the resurrection with
                Johanna at the vertex of the first stanza and together with the woman are
                treated prominently in the second stanza of the two part chiasmus. This is
                additional evidence that Johanna is someone important to Theophilus if an
                otherwise unknown person is the vertex 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.

                I recognize that you asked a simple question but the answer to your question
                will otherwise be incredulous if you did not have all the facts to
                understand why this proposal was even made.

                Professor Jacks then stated: "such as just when do you think Luke-Acts was
                written? Surely not during this Theophilus' reign as high priest"

                You have made an assumption that Luke-Acts appeared on the scene as one
                book. I regard Luke and Acts as two separate books with a common author,
                theology and point of view. My proposal explains why Luke 24 and Acts 1 does
                not read like successive parts of one book. Luke appeared first and at a
                later date Acts was published each in response to a set of circumstances
                whereby Luke believed that a letter addressed to Theophilus would assist the
                cause.

                The theory that Luke addressed his gospel to Theophilus to place Christians
                in a favorable light with Roman officials was well regarded in the first
                half of the 20th century. A variation of this theory was the religio licita
                theory which advocated that foreign religions had to be licensed. This
                theory further proposed that Luke was attempting to demonstrate to Roman
                officials that Christianity was a form of Judaism entitled to exist under
                the licensing privileges extended to Judaism. The Theophilus proposal
                explains why Luke was interested in establishing that Christianity was a
                form of Judaism. By demonstrating to Theophilus that the new sect was a part
                of Judaism, Luke hoped to persuade Theophilus who had the ability to end the
                prosecutions. Luke believed that a word from the High Priest would be
                sufficient. Mantel has shown that the High Priest and the Nesi'im was in
                contact with all the Jewish communities through emissaries and
                proclamations.

                Marshall has stated "Luke shows a particular interest in Herod Antipas,
                ruler of Galilee and Peraea from 4 B.C. until his disposition by Caligula in
                A.D. 39. Luke 3:19; 8:3; 9:7,9; 13:31; 23:7-15; Acts 4:27; 13:1." This
                proposal explains this interest. Luke wrote his first letter during the
                reign of Herod Antipas and the highpriesthood of Theophilus, after the
                stoning of Stephen which I date in 37 C.E. 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.

                Later, the second appeal was made because the rumors concerning Paul
                threatened to split the House of Israel. Although Luke focuses on Paul, the
                martyrdom of James in A.D. 62 appears to be the real motivating reason for
                Luke's second report to Theophilus. Luke does not mention the stoning of
                James which must have been a devastating event to the Jerusalem community.
                This communication is a conciliatory appeal for the various groups within
                Judaism to unite the House of Israel as one covenant community. Luke
                believes that a word from the High Priest addressed to the Jews throughout
                the world can stop the opposition of the Jews of the Diaspora, remove
                divisions in Judaism and lead to the final restoration of the reunited House
                of Israel. This appeal to the High Priest was addressed to him prior to the
                destruction of the Temple. As of the date Luke addressed his second letter
                to Theophilus, there has been no break with Judaism. In fact, Luke has
                consistently presented Jewish Christianity as authentic Judaism. The second
                letter is dated A.D. 65-67 during the highpriesthood of Matthias who was the
                son of Theophilus.

                I have been working on this proposal since 1995 when I sent an outline of my
                proposal to Professor Marshall. I believe my 1st article was accepted for
                publication in October 1995.

                I have published four articles discussing various aspects of my proposal:

                1) Theophilus: A Proposal, Evangelical Quarterly, 69:3 (1997), 195-215 (I.
                Howard Marshall, editor);
                2) The Cross and Atonement from Luke to Hebrews, Evangelical Quarterly, 71:2
                (1999), 127-149;
                3) Luke and the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, The Journal of Biblical
                Studies, Jan-Mar 2001, Vol. 1, No. 1;
                4) A la recherche de Theophile, Dossiers d'Archeolgie, Dec 02-Jan 03.

                In addition I have presented a number of papers to SBL MidAtlantic region.

                My rough draft of the proposal is over 200 pages; obviously I have not
                included in these emails all of my findings.

                Richard H. Anderson




                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Maluflen@aol.com
                In a message dated 10/23/2003 2:54:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... If I understand you correctly, you are imagining here that Luke reproduced older sources
                Message 7 of 12 , Oct 26, 2003
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 10/23/2003 2:54:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, randerson58@... writes:


                  What role did chiastic structures play with respect to an author such as
                  Luke? It permitted Luke to access very early tradition which was structured
                  in such a way as to facilitate accurate transmission.


                  If I understand you correctly, you are imagining here that Luke reproduced older sources already structured in neat chiasms? I doubt the validity of this model. I do need to do some more fundamental work on chreia exercises in antiquity and the other progymnasmata that formed the essential training for social or political job descriptions that involved rhetoric, writing and the imitation of ancient texts. But my intuition (based especially on work I have done on Luke's use of Matthean materials) tells me that the progymnasmata would specifically train a writer to NOT reproduce such literary-structuring devices as chiasms, parallel or contrastive idea-pairs, or other repetitive patterns in an original text to be imitated or developed. The idea would be that rewriting of any kind required, at a minimum, a careful initial analysis of such structures in a literary model used and a scrupulous avoidance of reproducing them literally (unless one intended to attribute the copied material to its source). In other words, rewriting meant in antiquity primarily and precisely the restructuring, re-forming of older materials. I would appreciate input on this issue from someone who might know more than I do about ancient imitative writing. My conclusion is based almost exclusively on empirical evidence here, including a study of how Josephus rewrites LXX stories in his Antiquities, etc.


                  This is particularly true of the material contained in the early chapters of Luke. In considering whether or not Jesus is the creator of the parables it is important to
                  remember what Matthew Black said: 'Jesus did not commit anything to writing,
                  but by His use of poetic form and language He ensured that His sayings would
                  not be forgotten.' In addition, the use of chiastic structures permitted
                  Luke to organize his material consistent with the thought process of the
                  first recipient.


                  I wonder, again, what exactly is the meaning of your final sentence here. I am suspicious of any claim to be able to recover the "form'" of Jesus' original teaching through what we find in the Gospels. It is of course not impossible that some of this came through, especially in Matthew (assuming a transmission of these sayings, prior to and including Matthew, that was oblivious of Greco-Roman writing norms). But I would not think it possible to assume that Matthew himself never restructured this material in the process of his own literary "transmission". And hence the difficulty of distinguishing between this later layer of structuring and that which informed the original sayings of Jesus, not to mention other stages of their transmission prior to the writing of Matthew.

                  Leonard Maluf
                  Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                  Weston, MA
                • Richard H. Anderson
                  ... such as ... structured ... The next sentence stated: This is particularly true of the material contained in the early chapters. Chapter 1 of Luke is a
                  Message 8 of 12 , Oct 26, 2003
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > > What role did chiastic structures play with respect to an author
                    such as
                    > > Luke? It permitted Luke to access very early tradition which was
                    structured
                    > > in such a way as to facilitate accurate transmission.

                    The next sentence stated: "This is particularly true of the material
                    contained in the early chapters."

                    Chapter 1 of Luke is a major chiastic structure briefly stated as:
                    a proclamation to Zechariah (1:5-25)
                    b proclamation to Mary (1:26-38)
                    b' Mary's hymn (1:46-56)
                    a' Zechariah's hymn (1:67-80)
                    see generally Bock, ECNT, Luke, vol. 1, 145.

                    I do not know if Luke created this material in chapter 1 in the form
                    in which it appears or if it was passed down to him orally
                    successfully because it was memorized and repeated using a chiastic
                    structure.

                    However, Luke's use of the two part chiastic structure in chapter 24
                    ends the Gospel of Luke in the same way it began, with a major
                    chiastic structure.

                    > >In addition, the use of chiastic structures permitted
                    > > Luke to organize his material consistent with the thought
                    process of the
                    > > first recipient.


                    Where I wrote "In addition" I should have said "Likewise" because I
                    am attempting to show that Luke created a literary structure familar
                    to Theophilus the High Priest to highlight the role of Johanna in
                    the proclamation of the gospel by placing Johanna at the vertex of
                    the first chiasmus as a way of calling the attention of Theophilus
                    to the second chiasmus which we know as the On the Road to Emmaus
                    pericope.

                    I was attempting to show that the use of a chiastic structure
                    was "consistent with the thought process of the first recipient."

                    Richard H. Anderson



















                    --- In synoptic-l@yahoogroups.com, Maluflen@a... wrote:
                    > In a message dated 10/23/2003 2:54:42 AM Pacific Standard Time,
                    > randerson58@c... writes:
                    >
                    >
                    > > What role did chiastic structures play with respect to an author
                    such as
                    > > Luke? It permitted Luke to access very early tradition which was
                    structured
                    > > in such a way as to facilitate accurate transmission.
                    >
                    > If I understand you correctly, you are imagining here that Luke
                    reproduced
                    > older sources already structured in neat chiasms? I doubt the
                    validity of this
                    > model. I do need to do some more fundamental work on chreia
                    exercises in
                    > antiquity and the other progymnasmata that formed the essential
                    training for social
                    > or political job descriptions that involved rhetoric, writing and
                    the
                    > imitation of ancient texts. But my intuition (based especially on
                    work I have done on
                    > Luke's use of Matthean materials) tells me that the progymnasmata
                    would
                    > specifically train a writer to NOT reproduce such literary-
                    structuring devices as
                    > chiasms, parallel or contrastive idea-pairs, or other repetitive
                    patterns in an
                    > original text to be imitated or developed. The idea would be that
                    rewriting of
                    > any kind required, at a minimum, a careful initial analysis of
                    such
                    > structures in a literary model used and a scrupulous avoidance of
                    reproducing them
                    > literally (unless one intended to attribute the copied material to
                    its source). In
                    > other words, rewriting meant in antiquity primarily and precisely
                    the
                    > restructuring, re-forming of older materials. I would appreciate
                    input on this issue
                    > from someone who might know more than I do about ancient imitative
                    writing. My
                    > conclusion is based almost exclusively on empirical evidence here,
                    including
                    > a study of how Josephus rewrites LXX stories in his Antiquities,
                    etc.
                    >
                    >
                    > > This is particularly true of the material contained in the early
                    chapters
                    > > of Luke. In considering whether or not Jesus is the creator of
                    the parables it
                    > > is important to
                    > > remember what Matthew Black said: 'Jesus did not commit anything
                    to writing,
                    > > but by His use of poetic form and language He ensured that His
                    sayings would
                    > > not be forgotten.' In addition, the use of chiastic structures
                    permitted
                    > > Luke to organize his material consistent with the thought
                    process of the
                    > > first recipient.
                    > >
                    >
                    > I wonder, again, what exactly is the meaning of your final
                    sentence here. I
                    > am suspicious of any claim to be able to recover the "form'" of
                    Jesus' original
                    > teaching through what we find in the Gospels. It is of course not
                    impossible
                    > that some of this came through, especially in Matthew (assuming a
                    transmission
                    > of these sayings, prior to and including Matthew, that was
                    oblivious of
                    > Greco-Roman writing norms). But I would not think it possible to
                    assume that
                    > Matthew himself never restructured this material in the process of
                    his own literary
                    > "transmission". And hence the difficulty of distinguishing between
                    this later
                    > layer of structuring and that which informed the original sayings
                    of Jesus,
                    > not to mention other stages of their transmission prior to the
                    writing of
                    > Matthew.
                    >
                    > Leonard Maluf
                    > Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                    > Weston, MA


                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Richard Anderson
                    Leonard Maluf, greetings: Kenneth E. Bailey has an article in Theology Matters entitled Women in the NT: A Middle Eastern Cultural View wherein Bailey
                    Message 9 of 12 , Oct 26, 2003
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Leonard Maluf, greetings:

                      Kenneth E. Bailey has an article in Theology Matters entitled "Women in the NT: A Middle Eastern Cultural View" wherein Bailey indicates Luke identifies Mary as the author of the Magnificat and presents her as a teacher of theology, ethics, and social justice for all his readers I had trouble accessing this site earlier today.

                      http://www.theologymatters.com/TMIssues/Janfeb00.pdf

                      Perhaps, I should stick with my original statement.

                      Richard H. Anderson

                       
                    • Karel Hanhart
                      ... From: Richard Anderson To: Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:47 AM Subject: [Synoptic-L] re: Luke to
                      Message 10 of 12 , Oct 28, 2003
                      View Source
                      • 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


                        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.
                        You wrote
                        > "Luke wrote his first letter during the reign of Herod Antipas and the
                        highpriesthood of Theophilus, after the stoning of Stephen which I
                        date in 37 C.E."

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

                        You further wrote at different places of the argumentation::
                        > "Luke appeared first and at a later date Acts was published each in
                        response to a set of circumstances whereby Luke believed that a letter
                        addressed to Theophilus would assist the cause.,,,The second letter is dated
                        A.D. 65-67 during the highpriesthood of Matthias who was the son of
                        Theophilus".

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

                        Is n't it a telling comment on the general lack of sufficient sources re.
                        the early christian movement, and a comment on the deafening or at least
                        muffled silence of Joseph bar Matthias, alias Flavius Josephus, concerning
                        the postcrucifixion period?. Because of this lack of historically accurate
                        information, we ironically have reached .opposite conclusions. EITHER - as
                        you propose -Luke, writing his Gospel and his Acts, appealed to Theophilus,
                        high priest from 37 to 40, for protective measures, OR Luke made no such
                        appeal because 1. Theophilus himself and all his immediate relatives (- 2..
                        Caiaphas + 3. Matthias, high priest in 65-67! + 4. Matthias, who was
                        suddenly appointed high priest by the persecutor Agrippa I in 41 OR 42
                        CE -), belonged to the powerful family of Annas. Agrippa's suspiciously
                        abrupt switch in 41 or 42 CE from the Boethusian highpriest, Simon Kantheras
                        to Matthias of the house of Annas (Ant 19.6. 2-4) seems to me a better trail
                        to follow. For under Matthias' clerical authority Agrippa launched his
                        persecution of Acts 12..

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

                        sincerely,

                        Karel



                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • John Lupia
                        ... Dear Karel Mr. Anderson and I had been discussing these things privately some time ago since we have similar ideas regarding Lukan priority. That the
                        Message 11 of 12 , Oct 30, 2003
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > You further wrote at different places of the
                          > argumentation::
                          > > "Luke appeared first and at a later date Acts was
                          > published each in
                          > response to a set of circumstances whereby Luke
                          > believed that a letter
                          > addressed to Theophilus would assist the
                          > cause.,,,The second letter is dated
                          > A.D. 65-67 during the highpriesthood of Matthias who
                          > was the son of
                          > Theophilus".

                          Dear Karel

                          Mr. Anderson and I had been discussing these things
                          privately some time ago since we have similar ideas
                          regarding Lukan priority. That the Gospel we refer to
                          as Luke's Gospel was indeed addressed to Theophilus HP
                          (37-41) is inherent in the text and supported by
                          additional clues found consistently throughout. I
                          mentioned a few points on this theme on this list
                          several years ago and tied in other factors such as
                          Thallus --- when seen together form an array of
                          supporting evidence that make the identification and
                          early dating of the canonical Gospel of Luke very
                          tenable.

                          Acts is, in my theoretical reconstruction, composed in
                          at least two time frames with the latter belonging to
                          another author. This too has been discussed by me on
                          this list several years ago.


                          My manuscript on the solution to the Synoptic Problem
                          begun in 1991 (first draft read by Msgr. James Turro,
                          Seton Hall University) is still far from publication
                          since many new discoveries that spun off into new
                          projects have taken considerable time. Hopefully one
                          phase of the material will be published or contracted
                          within a year from now.

                          I enjoy reading Mr. Anderson's and the Jerusalem
                          School's approaches to Lukan priority. When time
                          allows in the next few months I will contribute more
                          profitably to these discussions.

                          Ciao,
                          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@...
                        • Karel Hanhart
                          ... From: John Lupia To: Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] re: Luke to Theophilus
                          Message 12 of 12 , Nov 2, 2003
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: John Lupia <jlupia2@...>
                            To: <Synoptic-L@...>
                            Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 3:11 PM
                            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] re: Luke to Theophilus


                            Dear John,

                            I just sent off my answer to Richard's post. It will also serve as a reply
                            to your remarks below.

                            cordially yours,

                            Karel

                            > > You further wrote at different places of the
                            > > argumentation::
                            > > > "Luke appeared first and at a later date Acts was
                            > > published each in
                            > > response to a set of circumstances whereby Luke
                            > > believed that a letter
                            > > addressed to Theophilus would assist the
                            > > cause.,,,The second letter is dated
                            > > A.D. 65-67 during the highpriesthood of Matthias who
                            > > was the son of
                            > > Theophilus".
                            >
                            > Dear Karel
                            >
                            > Mr. Anderson and I had been discussing these things
                            > privately some time ago since we have similar ideas
                            > regarding Lukan priority. That the Gospel we refer to
                            > as Luke's Gospel was indeed addressed to Theophilus HP
                            > (37-41) is inherent in the text and supported by
                            > additional clues found consistently throughout. I
                            > mentioned a few points on this theme on this list
                            > several years ago and tied in other factors such as
                            > Thallus --- when seen together form an array of
                            > supporting evidence that make the identification and
                            > early dating of the canonical Gospel of Luke very
                            > tenable.
                            >
                            > Acts is, in my theoretical reconstruction, composed in
                            > at least two time frames with the latter belonging to
                            > another author. This too has been discussed by me on
                            > this list several years ago.
                            >
                            >
                            > My manuscript on the solution to the Synoptic Problem
                            > begun in 1991 (first draft read by Msgr. James Turro,
                            > Seton Hall University) is still far from publication
                            > since many new discoveries that spun off into new
                            > projects have taken considerable time. Hopefully one
                            > phase of the material will be published or contracted
                            > within a year from now.
                            >
                            > I enjoy reading Mr. Anderson's and the Jerusalem
                            > School's approaches to Lukan priority. When time
                            > allows in the next few months I will contribute more
                            > profitably to these discussions.
                            >
                            > Ciao,
                            > 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@...
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.