Steven Carr

Gosh, a posting devoid of all content,not even a date to say what 'recent' means.

I wonder if Gibson will explain why he thinks this is the best recent discussion,or why anybody should share his opinion.

Huon

According to Amazon.
Out of Print--Limited Availability.


Product Description
Luke's two-volume work begins with a formal preface unlike anything else in the New Testament, and it has long been academic orthodoxy that Luke's choice of style, vocabulary, and content in this short passage reveal a desire to present his work to contemporary readers as 'History' in the great tradition of Thucydides and Polybius. This study challenges that assumption: far from aping the classical historians, Dr Alexander argues, Luke was simply introducing his book in a style that would have been familiar to readers of the scientific and technical manuals which proliferated in the hellenistic world. The book contains a detailed study of these Greek 'scientific' prefaces as well as a word-by-word commentary on the Lucan texts. In her concluding chapters, Alexander seeks to explore the consequences of this alignment both for the literary genre of Luke-Acts (is it meant to be read as 'history'?) and for the social background of the author and the book's first readers.

Steven Carr

If Luke had been a good historian, would he have mentioned that James the church leader had been the brother of Jesus?

Jeffrey Gibson

Acts in its Literary Context was published in 2007. I'm surprised that given your claims to possess a knowledge of matters NT that is superior to the scholars whose works you often deride, that you did not know that.

Perhaps you, with your vast acquaintance with the writings both of ancient historians as well as those of contemporary classicists on the matter of ancient historiography, and with L. Alexander's publications and reputation as one who knows of what she speaks, will tell me why it isn't.

And FWIW, that Alexander's discussion is the best recent one on the issue is hardly just my opinion. Have a look at the reviews -- and not from grad students in engineering design, but from classicists who are acknowledged experts in their field -- that one can easily find through a google serach.

Jeffrey

Steven Carr

According to James Dunn in 'Beginning from Jerusalem (or via: amazon.co.uk)', Luke did not even have access to Paul's letters, which means he was pretty much out of the loop as far as Christianity was concerned, not being copied in on important documents.

Steven Carr

Jeffery gave us a fact! We have been blessed! It only took a sarcastic posting to get him to say what he should have said to start off with.

Could we have a roster of people charged to remind Jeffery to every so often put a fact in his postings? I can't be expected to do all the work myself.

Solo

I think a more germane would be a question whether Luke saw himself as 'a historian' and consequently whether it makes sense to compare him to the likes of Suetonius.

For myself, I had doubts on that score ever since I researched the verb πληροφορέω in the first verse of the preamble. Luke could not have meant it in the sense of 'things that transpired (and were recorded)'. He speaks of things that were 'accomplished' or better 'fulfilled' or 'fully assured' (cf. Col 12:4). This of course also qualifies the ἐν ἡμῖν as 'among us (who are) believers'. In that sense he speaks of the 'eyewitnesses' (αὐτόπται) in v. 1:2; they are not witnesses to historical events but spiritual events and specifically the resurrection. Actually the term is explained by Luke's allegory of the Emmaus encounter. The two followers are accosted by Jesus but they do not recognize him because their eyes (i.e. the organ with which one is said to witness) were 'seized', i.e. they were prevented from seeing to what one may see only with faith. It is only when they invite the stranger into their house and break bread with him (for the metaphorically challenged, and/or televangelist prodded, this means, 'when they let Jesus into their hearts') they 'eyewitness' the glory of the Lord.

It is important to realize that the cummunion with the Lord in the spirit was the cherished aim of the earliest Christians and that the synoptics (but not John) were written specifically to provide witness to the numinous presence as a reward for adherence to Christian values, with assurance that this presence would make itself available before one's death.

Mk 9:1 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."

Mat 6:22 The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light;
(body full of light - the photism experience of the Lord at the height of ecstasy)

Luke adds:

(11:36) If then your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, it will be wholly bright , as when a lamp with its rays gives you light'.


Jiri

Jeffrey Gibson

Really??

Here's what I just got whjen I went to Amazon:

I see that Barnes & Noble also has it in both its hardback and paper editions.

So does Borders (see here).

In any case, are you too saying that the only books that anyone should read are those that are in print and that one should never use a library?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, I decided to be a counter example to your general procedure.

Really? Seems to me that when you are not busy selectively quoting from a work, you rarely give all (if even any of) the bibliographical details of the work you are referring to.

See. e.g. http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....07#post6127207

and just now!

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....82#post6171982

I guess you think you are not bound to adhere to standards of citation that you think anyone else but you must live up to

In any case, and as the record will bear out, it is highly unusual for me, when citing a reference, not to include publication dates etc. But by all means make a mountain out of a molehill. Why you think though that you've scored some telling point by doing so and/or that in doing so, you don't give grounds for thinking that you may be nothing but a weasel, is beyond me.

FWIW, I originally had set my reference to Alexander's book with a link to Amazon (also my practice so that readers here can see bibliographical material), but I must have not correctly formatted it as such

What actual "work" -- beyond carping - do you think you do?

Jeffrey

Steven Carr

So no content again in Jeffery's post.

Somebody forgot to remind him to put in a fact! Must I do everything myself?

If Luke had no access to Paul's letters, as Dunn claims, then Luke was hardly as well-informed as, say, Marcion.