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

[Synoptic-L] re. Luke to Theophilus

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    Dear Steve, I trust you don t mind my answering your wise letter in the synoptic list. My answer to John Lupia in which I mentioned you letter, was sent off
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 4 2:16 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Steve,
      I trust you don't mind  my answering your wise letter in the synoptic list. My answer to John Lupia in which I mentioned you letter, was sent off before yours. I did not realize you had sent it directly to my E-mail address.

      Thank you for your engaging epistle. You put your finger on the wound of NT
      scholarship that is hard to heal if at all. The wound is the serious and
      cutting lack of objective historical  information on what we with a misnomer
      call the 'Jesus' movement'. This is due to - I used the phrase before - the
      deafening silence of Josephus concerning this - for christians - rather
      basic subject.
      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!! You are right that Flusser prefers Luke
      over the others. I will not go into detail . It is generally admitted that
      Luke's Gospel contains passages closer to the original source than those of
      Mark and Matthew. Flusser would certainly not date Luke's Gospel around 40
      So I like your sceptic approach. However, a degree of insight into the
      riddle of the 'New Testament' can be had by rigorous and broadly based
      exegesis of the texts involved.



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: spbranch2000 <spbranch@...>
      To: <k.hanhart@...>
      Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 2:46 AM
      Subject: Re: Luke to Theophilus

      > Greetings Karel.
      > I am not an
      academic, have no advanced degree, and simply try to
      > teach a bible study
      at my church.
      > Thank you for for engaging Richard Anderson in a
      serious manner on
      > his proposal that Luke was written to the High
      > You made a statement in your Nov. 2 post:... "However,
      > difficulties of equating Luke's Theophilus (a honorific title),
      > your dating of his Gospel and Acts are enormous, turning
      > scholarship upside down."
      > As a total outsider,
      with no right to comment, it seems like Synoptic
      > scholarship is quite
      diverse on the "Synoptic problem". The degree of
      > consensus seems small.
      Marcan priority is dominant, yet scholars hold
      > their own with Matthean
      and Lucan priority views. David Flusser and
      > R.L.Lindsey held to views of
      Lucan priority.
      > Then there are theories of non-canonical sources
      and questions as to
      > how many sources. And Q source constructions, and
      arguments against Q.
      > The primary consensus seems to be the
      Synoptic Gospels are "too
      > similar to be independent and too different to
      be copied". Also there
      > seems to be consensus that Hebrew as well as
      Aramaic and Greek were
      > living languages in 1st century
      > In sum, as an outsider, I have felt intuitively that
      the field is in
      > need of a new paradigm. There seem to be too many
      > positions. Not that Anderson's view is "the answer", yet there
      > be a seed of reality to his basic "insight" that Theophilus was
      > High Priest. Linguistically, Luke probably is a combination work
      > Greek and underlying semetic work(s), if "Jerusalem School"
      > have a piece of the puzzel correct. This would suggest
      > Anderson's "letter to the High Priest" is not our canonical Luke
      > may be embedded there, in part or whole. But in this
      > murky
      "bathwater" of Anderson's, there might be the baby of a new
      > paradign.
      For instance, if Theophilus does represent the intended
      > author of a
      letter, then the initial audience of the embedded letter
      > is Jewish, not
      gentile as many commentators suggest for the
      > canconical work. This could
      have the germ of a paradigm shift.
      > I enjoy both your and
      Anderson's posts on Synoptic-L. Thank goodness
      > for sincere, honest
      > Steve Branch.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.