aa5874

Are you implying that Theophilus was blind? How old was Theophilus when gLuke was written? Is it not expected or possible that Theophilus may himself have been a witness to the events in gLuke if they were indeed history, unless gLuke was written very long after the events?

It is clear from the preamble that the author intended to be believed as writing about history, or the certainty of these things, on earth from the days of king Herod to the ascension of Jesus.

DCHindley

Maybe they were simply not available to him. You think all records are instantly available everywhere?

In another thread, it has been pointed out that professional critic David Trobisch had proposed that the existing collection of letters consisted of 3 sub-groups:

Group 1) Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians.

To this group was added an appendix of the other such letters:

Group 2) Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 & 2 Thessalonians

To this combined collection was again added another group addressed to individuals:

Group 3) 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon

Tobisch does not think the individual letters circulated independently. These sub-groups were probably collected together in about that same order over a period of time. I believe Trobisch does not think they were published as a unified collection (all 3 sub groups) until mid to late 2nd century CE.

The author of Acts may have been aware of only some of these sub groups.

Then there is my own certainly-has-to-be-wrong idea that these sub-collections of Pauline letters, which had nothing to do with Jesus at all (they dealt exclusively with the justification of gentiles before God without requiring them to convert fully), were at a later time edited to make Paul into a "Christian," adding early Christ theology to do so. While I think the theology of the letters is cruder than that of the Gospels/Acts, and thus likely earlier, we may also have two productions of different 'wings" of the Christian movement.

DCH

Rick Sumner

In this scenario, why does Paul have such a drive for Gentiles to convert? The rationale Paul gives--indeed elaborates on at length in Romans--is that the conversion of Gentiles is necessary for the Messianic Age.

His drive is difficult to explain if he does not believe the Messiah has come.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

aa5874

But, written records do not have to be instantly available for someone to be aware of them or to have heard about them and the information contained there in.

The Pauline writer was claimed to have evangelised the Roman Empire and traveled extensively visiting churches that he had established and the author of Luke and Acts according to the Church, and even the author himself, also traveled and preached with Paul.

The author of Luke should have been able to read some of Paul's letters before they were sent out if they were really close associates.

And in addition, if it assumed Paul wrote letters sometime from around 55 CE and gLuke was written sometime around or well after 75 CE, then there is a full 20 years for the author of gLuke to have become aware of the letters of Paul.

Toto

I think you are right, but Stephen Carr is making a sarcastic observation on certain NT scholars who want to claim that Acts is based on real history, but also want to claim that the author of Acts did not have Luke's letters, as a way of explaining the discrepancies between the two accounts.

aa5874

Why would an historian ignore information that is critical to his work? That does not make much sense.

It is likely that he had no information about the letters of Paul because there was no Pauline letters yet.

Jeffrey Gibson

You tell us. After all, constantly ignore the Greek text of the NT, as well as the fact fact that, contrary to your claims, the whole of the NT does not speak of Jesus as the off spring of a holy ghost, as one who created the world, and/ or one who transfigures, resurrects, and ascends himself.

Jeffrey

aa5874

The author of Luke may have used EYE-WITNESSES for the dialogue between the angel called Gabriel and a virgin called Mary.

This writer called Luke appears to be an internal corroborative source for gMatthew's Holy Ghost conception of Jesus with a virgin Mary.

This is the supposed historian called Luke.

KJV Luke 1:35 - Now, I am not sure whether the angel spoke these words in Koine Greek, some Hebrew dialect, or Latin, the author of Luke did not say.

You know?

The author of Luke, the supposed historian, may have also used eye-witnesses for the transfiguration, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

The first bishop of Rome, Peter, ( he may have spoken some kind of Hebrew dialect commonly used by fishermen in Galilee), according to the author of Luke, was present at the transfiguration and heard the God-talking cloud (in what language I do not know), and was an eye-witness to the resurrected state of Jesus and saw him ascend through the ckouds.

The author of Luke appears to be an internal corroborative fsource for the Jesus story, he generally gave a lot of clinical details about implausible events.

These are some excerpts from the supposed historian called Luke.

The Transfiguration by Luke.

Luke 9:28-31$ 34-36 The Resurrection by Luke

Luke 24.5-7 The Ascension by Luke

Luke 24.50-53 It would appear that the author of Luke was quite an historian of implausible events, he MUST have used EYE-WITNESSES, or at least the first bishop of Rome.

Or maybe the author of Luke had problems with Koine Greek or the languages of the eyewitnesses, especially Gabriel..

How much of an historian was Luke?

DCHindley

I had proposed that the original letters of Paul had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, so he was not trying to get them to convert to anything. He was solely concerned with his belief that gentiles who believed in the promises made to Abraham (that his seed would inherit the land of Canaan and prosper) could be considered part of that seed, and thus co-heirs with the Jews, who remained God's chosen people. He was trying to talk gentiles OUT of converting to become Jews (by accepting circumcision, and the laws pertaining to that covenant), because they did not have to. This was his "good news" for faithful gentiles.

It was the Christian movement, the one that took over the letters and made Paul a Christian in their own image, who had their own "good news" of Jesus' vicarious atonement for the sins of all mankind, who had managed to transform the messianic expectations and teachings of Jesus' earliest followers.

DCH

Rick Sumner

Whether Paul is Christian or not, that is his "good news" for the Gentiles. He says as much explicitly and repeatedly. But this sidesteps the caveat.

The traditional reading of Paul has his "good news" that Gentiles will be saved and (at least when he fully formulates it in Romans) this will consequently usher in the Messianic Age. It answers two questions: What is Paul's purpose, and why does he do it.

Your proposal answers the first question, but drops the traditional answer to the second. Which leaves us with. . .what?

If it doesn't explain why Paul cares, it finds itself somewhat light in the explanatory power category. If he is not ushering in Gentiles because he believes the Messiah has come, then why exactly do you think he's doing it?

Regards,
Rick Sumner