sotto voce

Which merely confirms, as does everything about it, that Constantine's outfit was and remains a caricature. (As if any proof is needed!) It says nothing to assist in higher criticism. It's a perfectly natural way to write of this person in the context that begins in 'Eden', or began with Abraham, according to one's approach. In emphasising Jesus' humility, Paul wrote of him, 'born of a woman', as if any woman would have sufficed for the purpose.

Which, of course, must be the case, if the biblical theology of atonement is to make proper sense. The Romanist view is fundamentally humanist and inimical to the Bible's testimony, and any analysis that fails to recognise that fact inevitably runs aground and leads to confusion.

Duvduv

I meant iconic in the general sense of adoration and veneration, not literally. Yet, this wonderous woman doesn't deserve a single laudatory adjective about her state when she gave birth to Jesus in the sole reference to her in the entire book of Acts??

Toto

No, it involves similarities in vocabulary and style and theological viewpoint.

I repeat: do you have ADD? Your questions are unfocused and you don't seem to be paying attention.

Duvduv

What does that prove? So what if there are similarities?

Take any three scripts of three episodes of a television show written by different American writers. I am sure you'd assume they were all written by the same person.

Toto

That's not what iconic means.

Pay attention.

Neither the gospels nor Acts apply laudatory adjectives to Mary. She was chosen to bear Jesus, sort of like Princess Diana was chosen to bear some heirs to the throne of Britain.

Your original point was that there was some disconnect between the gospels and Acts, but this does not demonstrate that.

Toto

This is getting ridiculous.

Writers have a distinctive style, even writers for television shows. You should not be so sure that I could not tell the difference, even though I am an amateur.

Linguistic analysis can show that different parts of the Bible were written by different people, that the Pastorals were not written by the same person who wrote other letters ascribed to Paul. Do you accept this?

Duvduv

That is true, but we aren't talking about a case when the writing is different but when the writing is similar, and the point is that scribal styles that may be similar are not necessarily evidence that they were written by the same person. My point was that three given episode scripts of a TV show could be determined to have been written by the same person despite the fact that they were written by different people.

Finally, there is the issue of content and context. The Book of Acts does not relate to any of the stories and aphorisms mentioned in the Gospel of Luke, and the idea that "Acts doesn't have to, the entire book doesn't have to, because Luke already took care of it all" doesn't make sense any more than it makes sense to say that Luke's friend "Paul" didn't have to mention any gospel stories or aphorisms in the epistles because the readers already knew all about them. And of course the doctrines of the epistles of "Paul" are not in Acts either.

Toto

You have asserted without any evidence that three writers would be indistinguishable. What do you base this on??

You can go through Paul's letters and point out specific instances where Paul would have referred to a gospel story if he knew about it. Have you done this with Luke-Acts?

But in any case, it is clear that the final editor of Luke and Acts intended them to be two volumes of a series, and the author of Acts, while he might have included earlier materials, had access to the gospel stories.

The author of Luke-Acts was opposed to the doctrines of the epistles. You can in fact find these doctrines, but they are subverted and reversed. E.g. Paul in the epistles is opposed to the Jewish law and circumcision, but in Acts he fulfills a Jewish Nazirite vow and actually circumcises one of his companions. Paul in the epistles is opposed to the Jerusalem church, but cooperates with it in Acts.

sotto voce

For the sole purpose of making them acceptable to Jews who would have been too scandalised to even give them a hearing without fulfilling those obligations, as perceived.

Reference, please.

Duvduv

I don't think there is evidence that the author of Acts was OPPOSED to the doctrines of the epistles, but only that he did not have them and had others, hence an alternative tradition of Paul which STILL has nothing to do with the gospel stories. On the other hand, on the matter of circumcision we don't see the OVERALL teaching of Paul to support conversion with circumcision at all.

I am sorry that I don't share your view that the author of Acts "could have" used the gospel stories because you are hypothesizing that he had access. I don't want to recycle the same point as to whether the Book of Acts was intended to be associated with the Luke Gospel. It is obvious that someone at some point hope to get away with making that association, and you refer to the "final editor", but not the original author.

As far as script authors are concerned, if you were to read three scripts of a TV series covering the same theme I am sure you would have no reason to believe that they were written by different people. However, in the case of Luke versus Acts there are enough contextual issues that make it far from clear that they were written by the same person.

Not to mention the claims about Marcion who is said to have had a "Luke gospel" and altered versions of the epistles but no Acts.
I am offering that for the sake of argument simply because I don't accept the heresiologist's version of events concerning Marcion.