Toto

The standard tag for amazon automatically inserts that. It allows book purchases made from that link to support the board.

In the first place, this discussion board is not confined to experts.

In the second place, Pete Brown [mountainman] has many more issues than consulting sources that are not on line. That is the least of his problems.

On line material is easier to seach for and quote, that's all.

DCHindley

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

You seem to be making a theological point, assuming that Paul pretty much invented Christianity as we know it, making his writings seminal, making Luke a peripheral player if he was not privy to them. Even if this was the case, the Christ doctrine in the epistles is rough, inconsistent and not presented coherently, but rather as asides and digressions to other points, while the Christ doctrine in the Gospel and even Acts is subtle and assumed, as if already pretty much settled and digested by the writer. That would suggest that the doctrine reflected in the letters of Paul reflect rough drafts of the finished product found in Luke & Acts. If one wants to draw a pretty picture, why draw on the ugly?

That does not mean the author of Acts (or Gospel of Luke, if the same person), is "out of the loop as far as Christianity was concerned." Documents or traditions dealing with the same subject matter do not always have a linear relationship (document/tradition B drew on document/tradition A). They can come by their knowledge through a common tradition (documents/traditions B & C both drew on document/tradition A).

While I have not read this book of Dunn's, he is probably making an argument that the author of Acts may not have had copies of the letters of Paul, and reconstructed Paul's travels without their aid. He is explaining why the places and names reflected in the letters do not always fit into the travels described in Acts. He would not be talking about the theology they contain.

DCH

Jeffrey Gibson

So far as I can see, I never said it was. That would be stating the painfully obvious.

What I was -- and am - speaking about, as my words above show, are those here who present themselves as (and claim to be) experts when they are not, and as speaking from an an expertise, a mastery over relevant literature, and a knowledge of NT scholarship they demonstrably do not have.

Even you have to admit that this board has its share of these types.

Never said it wasn't. But you do admit, don't you, that at least one of his problems is that he presents himself as, and wants us to accept that he is, far more knowledgeable about 4th century religious movements, literature, and history than he is? Moreover, you do think, don't you, that he is wrong to do this because he isn't grounded in the literature that he would have to be conversant with to possess the expertise he claims he has and to be as knowledgeable about these matters as he claims he is?

I mean, to my recollection, you've actually said as much to him, yes? And this has been one of your grounds for dismissing his claims, yes?

Oh... that's what you were saying. Thanks for clarifying.

Jeffrey

dog-on

I think that the author of Acts was also the editor of "Luke". Probably around the time of Ireneaus, if it wasn't Ireneaus himself.

2-J

Probably offtopic but anyway; I don't think you have to be an expert on 4th century religious movements to realise that mountainman's case is implausible.

dog-on

I think that the Author of Acts, in fact, knew quite a bit about the letters of Paul. I just think that they were, somewhat, ignored for this particular exercise.

Steven Carr

So how well informed was Luke, if he could not even beg, borrow or steal copies of Paul's letters from other Christians, when he was doing his 'research' into Paul?

I suppose a really great historian can write about President Obama without having any copies of anything Obama wrote or said, so why does the mere fact that Luke couldn't even get copies of Paul's letters have anything to do with how good Luke's research was?

andrewcriddle

From a modern standpoint it would have been helpful to us if Luke had made clear his sources and we can legitimately regret that he did not.

From an ancient point of view specifying various obscure sources, many of them oral, for relatively recent events would not have been thought helpful. (How on earth is the poor reader to check them ?) The absence of such sources in Luke need not imply any lack of committal to getting the facts right.
Against Apion is an overtly polemical work and such works in the ancient world were particularly likely to cite sources. The other works of Josephus do, as you say, cite sources but not all that frequently. Apart from quotations of official documents there are few sources given for Antiquities books 16-20. (Some of your list of sources quoted by Josephus seem problematic, eg I don't think Josephus quoted Jerome.)

There is a good discussion of ancient use of sources in chapter 1 of Did the Greeks Believe in their Myths ? (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Veyne.

Andrew Criddle

jgoodguy

The other possibility is that the author of gLuke was writing on contract for Theophilus or to impress Theophilus his patron. "it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Did the the author of gLuke intend history, or just to get paid, to impress his boss, or to present an argument for theological viewpoint?

jgoodguy

Were the author of gLuke to quote his sources how can a modern reader check out the testimony of a 1st Century peasant, merchant, priest, missionary or otherwise unknown person. The author could have cheerfully quoted, misquoted, quoted out of context or just made the persons and quotes up and how would anyone then, a few years , a few decades, centuries or millennia later check it out.

The canon was put together centuries after the writers wrote and without regard to the intent of the writers. IMHO the canon put an intent on the writings that the authors may have never intended.