Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Luke to Theophilus
- --- 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
> > The chiasmus construction is indeed interesting
> > important, as I wrote before. However, the
> > difficulties of equating Luke's Theophilus (a
> > honorific title), and your very early dating of
> > Gospel and of his Acts are enormous, turning
> > scholarship upside down.
> > 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
> > Gospel of Luke to c. AD 37-41 enormously
> 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!!
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.My comment was in context of the early dating being
> Is it that "obvious"?
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 theYes, agreed on the basis of the later chapters that
> 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.
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 DutchYes.
> scholar G. Bouwan.
However, Luke according to most
> scholars wrote his ActsYou need to step back and see the big picture that
> m,uch later.
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.
> Karel:Agreed. Why are you so articulate about the current
> 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.
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
I have my
> suspicions aboutYes I agree that caution in this case is prudent. I am
> 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.
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
John N. Lupia, III
Toms River New Jersey 08757 USA
Phone: (732) 505-5325
God Bless America
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
Theophilus needed this information because he was unaware and thus ignorant of the aims of this movement?>Do you seriously consider thatNo. People do not make irenical presentations because someone needs the information because they are ignorant. Rather, it is because, it isdesigned 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