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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Nov 3, 2003
      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 2 of 13 , Nov 3, 2003
        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 combinationÂ’ 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 3 of 13 , Nov 4, 2003
          ----- 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 4 of 13 , Nov 4, 2003
             
            ----- 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 5 of 13 , Nov 5, 2003
              --- 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 6 of 13 , Nov 6, 2003
                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.