Layman

I haven't run across that one.

Can you explain to me more what you mean? By saying that the ending of Acts is a transvaluation of the ending of 2 Kings, are you suggesting that the goal of the author of Acts is to place a positive spin on Jehoiachin's exile?

neilgodfrey

I'm not sure if transvaluation was the right word - it implies an authorial intent that may be prejudging the question. To the extent I was thinking of "transvaluation" as a possibility I was wondering if Acts was written with the disaster of Israel's Primary History in mind as a foil for the more successful history of a spiritual people of God. The thought is prompted mainly by their similar endings of leaders in captivity.

There are the added details that the prison locations are in the imperial centres (Babylon/Rome); something of a positive touch is given to Jehoiachin's status by having him "lifted up" to eat with the Babylonian king and of course Paul has his own degree of freedom; and both concluding scenes leave the reader anticipating a divinely planned future beyond the text (although 2 Kings may be read far more pessimistically than that).

We also have the often noted comparison between the Genesis story of the tower of Babel and the opening tongues scene in Acts. Much is made of the Temple as the centre of the new people of God in Acts, too, until it's forshadowed demise (Acts 21:30). One could play with many other possible reflective hints (e.g. Queen of the South/Ethiopian eunuch etc) but I have never been able to tie anything substantial together, hence my question still hangs up there somewhere.

But all that aside, I am a little surprised that there seems to have been so much discussion concerning the ending of Acts without (to my knowledge) any reference to the not dissimilar ending of the Prim Hist.

Layman

Thanks, interesting points. I'm not sure transvaluation is the correct word either, but perhaps I'm being overly literal. When I have time I'll recheck my commentaries to see if they referred to something similar though without calling it transvaluation.

yalla

From A.H.McNeile "An Introduction to the Study of the N.T." 2nd Ed. Revised by C.S.C.Williams Clarendon Press Oxford 1953.

Whilst discussing the possibility that the author of gLuke and Acts was ,as per Christian tradition, a physician, the authors cite work done by Hobart "The Medical Language of St.Luke'' 1883.
They then cite the rebuttal of this as done by Cadbury in 1919.
Cadbury looked at the 400 plus words of Hobart that were allegedly medical terms.

Now I was not struck by the argument as to whether or not the author of L/Acts was a physician but by the locating of the "medical'' words in contemporary literature by Cadbury.
The text states p.109..
"more than 80% of his [Hobart] words are found in the LXX
300 of them also in Josephus
27 of them in the LXX but not in Josephus
67 of them in Josephus but not in the LXX"
Very significantly, IMO,..."More than 90% are covered by Plutarch and Lucian.

So can we read anything into this apropos a Josephus/author"Luke" link ie dependency?
It seemed to me that the above suggests the possibility of such but without more detailed knowledge of Hobart/Cadbury/Josephus/others it is only idle thought.
Any comments?

Layman

Just as a matter of first impression, Josephus' writings were much more extensive than the LXX. Antiquities was 20 volumes, Jewish War was 7. Then there is his Autogiography and Against Apion. Not really much of a comparison. Additionally, whether there is dependence or not, whether written before Antiquities or not, both are products of a similar time and had similar audiences. Finally, Steve Mason -- a noted Josephan scholar -- has discussed the linguistic similiarities between Luke-Acts and Antiquities. He doesn't find much.