Bernard Muller

Peter wrote:
Can you find an example of a false address to a minor official, whose importance at the time was so low as to escape mention in other literature or archaeological evidence?

Then in a next post:

Peter wrote:
I am not aware of any evidence or even of any scholar which would favor the idea that Justin was making up the person of Marcus Pompeius, or referring to him as a recipient of the document falsely. So this is a poor example. (By the way, we might know more about this Marcus if the beginning of the Dialogue were intact, as Quasten's Patrology indicates that some has been lost.)

Did I say Justin was making up that Marcus Pompeius? I expressed some doubts, but did not say that. And I did not have to. According to your initial challenge, you never ask for that minor official to be fictional.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

So far the only reasoning you've given me for thinking Theophilus was a fake name is something about how Luke stresses the resurrection. Which still makes absolutely no sense to me. So I guess we're even.

But I guess if you accept that it was addressed to an upper crust dude but Luke used a fake name to protect him.... I'm not sure what your point is now.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
But I guess if you accept that it was addressed to an upper crust dude but Luke used a fake name to protect him ... I'm not sure what your point is now.

Well not exactly, I had in mind fictional (or existing before but dead when gospel was written). See my last post to Kirby where I explained things (and try to answer the stated dilemma yourself).
I never mentioned a **fake** name **to protect** the addressee.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

So you're theory is that the author of Acts attempted to deceive his readers (who had never even heard of such a work before) that it had actually been written 20 years earlier? That is very dubious. And as I've had to tell my fellow Christians, nothing about Acts ending with Paul in prison should be taken as the piece being written shortly thereafter.

Especially b/c, being written as a part of Luke, the author is quite clear that we have moved beyond the first generation of witnesses and are well into the second generation of Christians. This is incompatible with your theory that Luke is claiming to have written while Paul and Peter and others were still alive.

Why? Of course Luke could claim to be accurately reflecting what Jesus said before the fall of Jerusalem. I think it's a little silly to suggest that after 70 CE, every Christian writer who mentions this prophecy had to pretend to be writing decades earlier.

Actually, we do not. Your entire "dilemma" rests on the argument that Luke meant to indicate to his readers that he'd written decades before he did. But Luke never shows any sign of trying to give us such a date. If he had wanted to, he could have come out and said, "written during the reign of ____." He shows a proclivity to mark events by such references in his two works. Of course, Luke does tell us that "many have undertaken to draw up an account" and that "just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

Peter Kirby

What is the evidence that it wasn't? Does anyone ever attribute the third Gospel to some author other than Luke? Is it quoted under another title? Does a manuscript show up with the "original" title-less form, or with a different guess as to what it should be called? I would suggest that the title was known to everyone who had a copy because the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the title being original rather than an interpolation.

I recall that you have appealed to Justin Martyr as a support for the idea that the Gospel of Luke was anonymous. But Justin was also aware, for example, that the Gospel of Mark was associated with Peter without quoting it with the name of Mark (see Dial. 106.4 with reference to Boanerges, unique to Mark, in the memoirs of Peter). Justin writes, "...in the Memoirs which, as I have said, were drawn up by the apostles and their followers, [it is recorded] that sweat fell like drops of blood while he [Jesus] was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass'." This part, which may be interpolated, is found only in the Gospel of Luke. Justin is aware that the memoirs were written by the apostles and their followers. Notice that your common everyday Christian automatically assumes that each of the four Gospels was written by someone who knew Jesus personally; it's a natural and desirable assumption. Yet Justin is aware that the followers of apostles also wrote some of the memoirs, and this is explained if Justin knew the attribution of two of them to Mark and to Luke. Justin doesn't mention the names of any of the four evangelists, but he is aware that they were written by apostles and apostolici and that one was associated with Peter, meaning that some other explanation is to be sought than that the attributions were made in the late second century. One explanation is that Justin was frequently quoting from memory and was not exactly sure which of the gospels the material he quotes actually came from. Another explanation is that Justin was working with a harmony of Matthew and Luke.

OK.

Luke-Acts does not give any indication that it is to be taken as having been written before the fall of Jerusalem. On the contrary, in Luke 21:24 the author indicates a space of time between the destruction of Jerusalem and when "the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled," when the cosmic signs will finally appear ushering in the Son of Man. And, of course, the immediate audience of Luke and Acts would be well aware that it was written recently, so an attempt at deception (of which there was none) would be implausible.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

Peter wrote:
What is the evidence that it wasn't? Does anyone ever attribute the third Gospel to some author other than Luke? Is it quoted under another title?

That a big argument from silence you have. Just because that gospel was not given another author (as for the other three canonical gospels) does not mean it had "the Gospel according to Luke" on it early on.

Does a manuscript show up with the "original" title-less form, or with a different guess as to what it should be called?

We do not have manuscript pre-200 with the beginning of GLuke.

I would suggest that the title was known to everyone who had a copy because the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the title being original rather than an interpolation.

You can suggest anything you want, but you do not have a shred of evidence. Preponderance of evidence? You have nothing.

But Justin was also aware, for example, that the Gospel of Mark was associated with Peter without quoting it with the name of Mark (see Dial. 106.4 with reference to Boanerges, unique to Mark, in the memoirs of Peter).

Here it is: "And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder;"
I do not see "Mark". "Him" & He are related to Jesus, not Peter.
Actually all the "He" and "Him" in that chapter are about Christ. What should it be different here? Except for someone obsessed. And we are not even talking about "Luke".

Justin writes, "...in the Memoirs which, as I have said, were drawn up by the apostles and their followers, [it is recorded] that sweat fell like drops of blood while he [Jesus] was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass'." This part, which may be interpolated, is found only in the Gospel of Luke. Justin is aware that the memoirs were written by the apostles and their followers.

Ya, I noticed that too. Justin knew, by looking at the first 3 verses of the third gospel, that the author was a follower (Lk1:2) and not one of the apostles. But I do not see here Justin attributing the gospel to Luke, far from that.
Actually later, Luke was never described a follower of Jesus' apostles, that is the twelve (or any one of them), the ones who allegedly observed Jesus praying.
Then, Luke was thought a very faithful follower of Paul. But Paul is never in the picture in Trypho.
I think we can make a good case here that Justin was thinking of someone else other than Luke, Paul's companion.

Notice that your common everyday Christian automatically assumes that each of the four Gospels was written by someone who knew Jesus personally; it's a natural and desirable assumption. Yet Justin is aware that the followers of apostles also wrote some of the memoirs, and this is explained if Justin knew the attribution of two of them to Mark and to Luke.

It seeems Justin knew about Mark, because in the passage about Jesus changing names, quoted earlier (106), he avoided to refer to "the memoirs of the (his) apostles". He wrote "the memoirs of him [Christ]".
For the previously quoted passage of GLuke, Justin is under the impression the follower is 'one who followed the apostles'. That takes away Luke, Paul's pal. Sorry!

Justin doesn't mention the names of any of the four evangelists, but he is aware that they were written by apostles and apostolici and that one was associated with Peter,

That's your biased interpretation: the "Him" is not about Peter, but Christ, like all the other "Him" and "He" in the chapter.

meaning that some other explanation is to be sought than that the attributions were made in the late second century.

Now I am certain Justin could not have been thinking of Luke when he looked at the interpolation in GLuke, the one about Jesus praying, sweat & blood.

One explanation is that Justin was frequently quoting from memory and was not exactly sure which of the gospels the material he quotes actually came from. Another explanation is that Justin was working with a harmony of Matthew and Luke.

Humm, he seems to know which gospel (that is GMatthew) is from the apostles (plural) and which ones are from their followers.

Luke-Acts does not give any indication that it is to be taken as having been written before the fall of Jerusalem. On the contrary, in Luke 21:24 the author indicates a space of time between the destruction of Jerusalem and when "the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled,"

Yes, but that's not narration from the author, but an additional prophetic bit planted in the mouth of Jesus, another item to explain the delay. There is a lot of difference here.
That certainly does not show the author is telling the gospel is written (well) after 70.

when the cosmic signs will finally appear ushering in the Son of Man. And, of course, the immediate audience of Luke and Acts would be well aware that it was written recently,

How, because Jesus made a prophecy indicating he'll return well after the fall of Jerusalem! Come on ... If the audience knew the gospel was recent, they would immediately suspect the added crap, including the prophecies about the fall of Jerusalem.
I can write now a book where I (or rather a mysterious person, maybe an alien) "predicts" many events of the last ten years:
a) I say the book has just been written. I am laughed at world-wide and put in jail.
b) I am smart enough to make it look as an old book, 20 years old, just discovered by chance. That would attract a lot of interest, more so if the book says that within one year UTOPIA will come on earth.
Peter, do a reality check.

so an attempt at deception (of which there was none) would be implausible.
Dream on.
I would like to see the face of your Theophilus, when he is delivered 'Acts', let's say around 90, then read it, then follow the great hero of the last half, that is Paul, then two years in Rome, trial pending, then BLANK, the end.
What's going on? This is insulting to be given to read an unfinished work, a story with no ending! (because by then, Paul had died, long ago)
Peter, do again a reality check.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

You seem to be suffering from the misapprehension that Acts is about Paul. It is not a biography of Paul. It is a history of early Christianity. Or, in Luke's view, how the Gospel was preached from Jerusalem to Rome. How does one decide when the history of early Chrsitianity ended? Any ending will be somewhat arbitrary. Apparently Luke wanted to follow the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. Which is why it starts with Jesus, moves to Peter, makes some mention of James, then to Paul.

No mention is made of the fates of Peter or James, despite the fact that at least James was publically martyred by 62 CE.

"The story of the early expansion of Christianity has no single natural conclusion: Luke chooses to conclude his narrative with Paul's uninhibited preaching of the gospel in Rome. He has prepared the reader for this from his report of Paul's plan to see Rome: the remainder of Acts relates the accomplishment of this plan, in spite of many hinderances; and when it is accomplished at last, Acts comes to its designed end." F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, at 13.

Also, there seems to be no good reason to assume that Luke's audience had no knowledge of Paul's fate. They likely did. 1 Clement seems to refer to some tradition about the fates of Peter and Paul by 95 CE or so. No one would be left high and dry b/c Luke did not wrap up the personal stories of his important players.

Peter Kirby

Actually, it was a response to your argument that the title wasn't original. You have to back up the premise that there were some people who knew the third Gospel under a different author name. For my part, I am not dealing with silence but rather with unanimous witness to what the text was called.

But a change made in the late second century often (some would say almost always) shows up in manuscripts of the third through fifth centuries, which had earlier exemplars. For example, the Longer Ending was an addition in the second century, but there are manuscripts without it.

Usually the person proposing an addition or interpolation has an obligation to present some reason for rejecting what all the manuscripts say. What makes the idea that the title wasn't original anything more than pure speculation?

I have presented arguments, such as in response to your earlier request, and you said simply, "Speculative blablablah. Where is the beef?" That's passing up the opportunity to show the reasoning to be erroneous when it is presented. Your strong declamations of "you do not have a shred of evidence" do not tell us anything objective about the state of the question.

You missed the point, which is that Justin was aware of the tradition about the GMark and its connection to Peter without giving the name "Mark." This was just a minor point in response to your use of Justin Martyr to argue that the Gospel of Luke was known as something other than the Gospel of Luke.

Insults will get you nowhere.

I have caught mistakes in the ANF translation before, and the capitalization of "Him" as being Jesus would be another such a one--this is not a reference to Memoirs of Christ, as Archambault, Zahn, and Massaux have noted. Edouard Massaux writes, "The words ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ are to be understood as the Memoirs of Peter." (The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, vol. 3, p. 90) Massaux explains, "the fact that Justin never speaks of the Memoirs of Christ, but always of the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' leads me to refer it to Peter." The references are:

Apology 1.66
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...

Apology 1.67
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits...

Dialogue 100
...and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God...

Dialogue 101
...they spake in mockery the words which are recorded in the memoirs of His apostles...

Dialogue 102
...as has been declared in the memoirs of His apostles...

Dialogue 103
...is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him...

Dialogue 103
For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying...

Dialogue 104
And this is recorded to have happened in the memoirs of His apostles.

Dialogue 105
For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs.

Dialogue 105
He said, 'Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,' as I have learned also from the memoirs. ... and these words are recorded in the memoirs...

Dialogue 106
...and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles.

Dialogue 106
Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

Dialogue 107
"And that He would rise again on the third day after the crucifixion, it is written in the memoirs that some of your nation...

Nowhere does Justin think to call these "memoirs of Jesus," as Jesus didn't keep a diary, nor even does Justin say "memoirs about Jesus" but rather consistently associates the memoirs with the apostles.

Justin may have regarded Paul as an apostle even though he doesn't mention this "Apostle of the Heretics"; frequently and to this day we encounter writers who both call the Twelve 'the apostles' yet deem Paul also an apostle. On the other hand, if Justin's silence on Paul in his apologetic work actually was because he rejected the apostleship of Paul, Justin would have justified the acceptance of the Gospel of Luke as one of the memoirs as being by one who followed after the apostles, an interpretation which he could have derived from the prologue as though Luke had interviewed eyewitnesses personally (and some ancient interpreters have assumed that Luke was one of the seventy). So the hypothesis that Justin attributed the gospel to one other than Luke is no more demonstrable than that Paul was thought to be an apostle or that Luke was thought to have known some of the Twelve.

Nor is there anything explicit saying that it was written before 70.

This argument might be acceptable if Luke wrote the first gospel, but by his own admission he did not. The statement about Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem, fulfilled in the First Jewish Revolt, was already known and accepted as the words of Jesus. All that the author of Luke does is add some imagery with septuagintal wording of the previous sack of Jerusalem and extend Mark's timeframe for the final appearance of the Son of Man. There was nobody as critical as a Bernard Muller going around showing that it must be a vaticinium ex eventu. And the canon "if it's not provable fact it's crap" was not in use.

By the way, just about every document that pretends to be more ancient than it is--Daniel, Tobit, the Epistula Apostolorum, the Book of Thomas the Contender, the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Athanasius, etc., etc.--names an author, some old worthy whose authority is invoked. If Luke-Acts were such a work, that would make it much more likely that it is pseudonymous rather than anonymous.

Did you read the original post?

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

Peter wrote:
Actually, it was a response to your argument that the title wasn't original. You have to back up the premise that there were some people who knew the third Gospel under a different author name. For my part, I am not dealing with silence but rather with unanimous witness to what the text was called.

Who said that? Just because the third gospel did not have a name in the early years, does not mean "Gospel according to Luke" had to be known. When referring to gospels (or bits in them) before 170, the Christians authors were talking about "the Gospel", "Gospels", "Memoirs of his (or the) apostles". They did not need a name to bring about material or paraphrase of gospels bits. They managed without it, regardless they were referring to GMatthew, GLuke or GMark. So the evidence is straight against you.

But a change made in the late second century often (some would say almost always) shows up in manuscripts of the third through fifth centuries, which had earlier exemplars. For example, the Longer Ending was an addition in the second century, but there are manuscripts without it.

Well, around 170-200, The Moratorian Canon came with: "The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke,". At the same time (or before), Irenaeus was very high on Luke and his alleged gospel. That would explain the titles on the third gospel 3rd to 5th cent. I bet 3rd-5th cent. copies of the other gospels also would have that kind of title.
As far as 2nd century additions to gospels, what does that prove? What connection is there with titles?

Usually the person proposing an addition or interpolation has an obligation to present some reason for rejecting what all the manuscripts say. What makes the idea that the title wasn't original anything more than pure speculation?

What are you taking about? Does an interpolator require permission? Since when?

I have presented arguments, such as in response to your earlier request, and you said simply, "Speculative blablablah. Where is the beef?" That's passing up the opportunity to show the reasoning to be erroneous when it is presented. Your strong declamations of "you do not have a shred of evidence" do not tell us anything objective about the state of the question.

Yes Peter, that was in response of what you said:
"It is implausible because, as I said before, the author of Luke-Acts was clearly well-read and would know that works were given titles, whether by the original author or not, and would probably want to make the decision himself for the magnum opus he had labored over; and, being that there were accounts from different people before him, of which he was aware, the author must have given his work a title to distinguish it from the many others."
Still think the same. Unsupported dubious arguments. What strikes me is on some other post you come with load of evidence to support your point or some of others, or against others (sometimes me, but I do not blame you for that: Evidence rules). So you should know the difference between evidence and Blablablah. Why don't you apply the same standard across the board. Be consistent.
And also, I do not want to blablablah against your blablablah. Let's stick to the evidence.

You missed the point, which is that Justin was aware of the tradition about the GMark and its connection to Peter without giving the name "Mark." This was just a minor point in response to your use of Justin Martyr to argue that the Gospel of Luke was known as something other than the Gospel of Luke.

I never said anything like the Gospel of Luke was known as something other than the Gospel of Luke by Justin. I recall saying about Justin not calling any gospel by name. And about Peter & Mark, I refuted that already by saying the "Him" or "him" is not Peter. "Him" in the whole chapter refer to Christ. And never Justin attributed a memoir to only one person.

Massaux explains, "the fact that Justin never speaks of the Memoirs of Christ, but always of the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' leads me to refer it to Peter."

This is just an opinion (just like Koester's about a bit of the anti-Marcionite prologues). Against that is all other "Him" in 106 are about Christ and no memoirs is attributed to only one person in Justin's works. But I agreed "Him" was used here to avoid saying "His apostles". And yes, Justin might have been thinking of Mark, not one of the apostles.
Actually, weeks ago, I came accross your claim, and I said "great, I can use that as external evidence for GMark". But when I looked at the passage, that's way below the radar screen, and the "him" has little chance to either mean Peter or Mark, according to the context. And now, I still have no reason to change my mind.

Justin may have regarded Paul as an apostle even though he doesn't mention this "Apostle of the Heretics"; frequently and to this day we encounter writers who both call the Twelve 'the apostles' yet deem Paul also an apostle. On the other hand, if Justin's silence on Paul in his apologetic work actually was because he rejected the apostleship of Paul, Justin would have justified the acceptance of the Gospel of Luke as one of the memoirs as being by one who followed after the apostles, an interpretation which he could have derived from the prologue as though Luke had interviewed eyewitnesses personally (and some ancient interpreters have assumed that Luke was one of the seventy). So the hypothesis that Justin attributed the gospel to one other than Luke is no more demonstrable than that Paul was thought to be an apostle or that Luke was thought to have known some of the Twelve.

There are a lot of speculations here. And that's no evidence for me in favor of Luke.

This argument might be acceptable if Luke wrote the first gospel, but by his own admission he did not. The statement about Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem, fulfilled in the First Jewish Revolt, was already known and accepted as the words of Jesus.

Yes, and likely through GMark, **as long as** the people were not aware GMark was written after the events. Certainly early Church fathers, including Eusebius, were saying that GMark was written before 70.
If it was known then GMark was written after the events of 70, I am sure "Luke" or "Matthew" would not have carried Jerusalem destruction as a Jesus' prophecy. "Luke" could only add up prophetic details on Jerusalem destruction if his community accepted that Jesus' prophecies about the end of Jerusalem were genuine and not the product of a recent writing composed after the facts.

All that the author of Luke does is add some imagery with septuagintal wording of the previous sack of Jerusalem and extend Mark's timeframe for the final appearance of the Son of Man.

And that would be OK, as long as the new gospel was presented as written before 70. Can you imagine somebody then, comparing the prophecies of Jesus about Jerusalem from a copy of GMark (thought to have been written before 70) and a copy of GLuke (as known to be written in 85)?
Again, do a reality check, Peter.

By the way, just about every document that pretends to be more ancient than it is--Daniel, Tobit, the Epistula Apostolorum, the Book of Thomas the Contender, the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Athanasius, etc., etc.--names an author, some old worthy whose authority is invoked.

Good point, but the most sacred ancient scriptures, the Pentateuch, did not come with the title "the books according to Moses". Moses, as the author, had to be stuck on these books later. Actually, it is clear that the initial authors did not even pretend to be writing in the name of Moses and the books were written a long time after Moses (if he existed). They were just anonymous "histories" just like the anonymous gospels. Here is a good parallel.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bernard Muller
I would like to see the face of your Theophilus, when he is delivered 'Acts', let's say around 90, then read it, then follow the great hero of the last half, that is Paul, then two years in Rome, trial pending, then BLANK, the end.
What's going on? This is insulting to be given to read an unfinished work, a story with no ending! (because by then, Paul had died, long ago)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you read the original post?

Ya, and I did again. What a deluge of words to make your point! I am weary of long argument to support hypothesis. That tells me the conclusion is forced.
Still think the same: 'Acts' is presented as a "history", Paul is the great hero of the last half, and if truly written in 85-90 by an author who was known to Theophilus (assuming he existed), the ending of Paul had to be indicated.
If the author of 1Clement can do it, so the author of Acts.
GLuke ends also logically, Jesus' ascension.
You are looking at theological reason for the open ending. Sure, I agree, on that level, Paul's end is not necessary. But I am considering your proposed real life conditions, way after Paul's death, between a declared writer and a true recipient. That does not make any sense.
The only way it can make sense, that is in real life, is that 'Acts' was presented as being written before 64. That would explain why Theophilus did not get the ending.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
Also, there seems to be no good reason to assume that Luke's audience had no knowledge of Paul's fate. They likely did. 1 Clement seems to refer to some tradition about the fates of Peter and Paul by 95 CE or so. No one would be left high and dry b/c Luke did not wrap up the personal stories of his important players.

If 1Clement did it, why not "Luke". If the end of Paul is known, why not say it.
I know as almost everybody else on this planet, how JFK ended, but if I read a "history" book whose last half is about JFK, I expect to see a narration of his death.
You don't let most excellent Theophilus hanging here, wondering.
At the end of GLuke, Jesus dies, resurrects and goes to Heaven. In Acts, you would expect that about Paul, presented as the savior in/of the Gentile world. In Philippians 1:23, 3:10-11, Paul is expecting to duplicate Jesus' passion and go to heaven. Why not have him fulfill it? That's what 1Clement did:

5:5 Through envy Paul, too, showed by example the prize that is given to patience:

5:6 seven times was he cast into chains; he was banished; he was stoned; having become a herald, both in the East and in the West, he obtained the noble renown due to his faith;

5:7 and having preached righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extremity of the West, and having borne witness before rulers, he departed at length out of the world, and went to the holy place, having become the greatest example of patience.

Best regards, Bernard