Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-31-2003, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Hi all,

May I ask a question?

What exactly is the positive case that 'Luke' was not a companion of Paul? That 'Luke' used phrases from Greek classics (much as we all use Shakespeare) shows us only he was classically educated and the Josephus does not convince as it depends not only on 'Luke' using Josephus but misreading him too. That 'Luke' and Jo disagree is actually prima facie evidence of independence.

I can see the positive case that he was a companion as:

- the agreement with the letters of Paul;
- but the disagreement on some specific points in them that show he did not use them as a source;
- the 'we' passages that we now know are not a literary device for sea journies (Toto's heroics notwithstanding);
- the large amount of historical accuracy on the situation in the 50s and 60s coupled with mistakes (like the census and the various rebels) on events a couple of generations earlier;
- no martyrdom account which we would expect to see in a second century document.

So what are the positive arguments against Luke being who he says he is?

Yours

Bede

Most Venerable Bede: You seem to have slept through most of this discussion, if not a lot more.

Reason #1 to think that Luke-Acts were not written by Luke or an eyewitness of any sort: The two books never claim eyewitness status. aLuke claims to have used "many sources", but never to have been an eyewitness. So there is not a case of "Luke being who he says he is" because he never says.

I am quite sure that the "we" passages are some sort of literary device. Layman started a thread to dispute the idea that "we" was a Hellenistic convention in sea stories, without having read the article that demonstrates a particular theory about the literary device, and I showed that the arguments that he raised were not well taken. That discussion has not ended.

The standard argument against Luke-Acts being written by a companion of Paul is that the dating is too late, the theological perspective is too different, etc. If you reread some of the earlier threads in this series you will find where I cited a summary from Thiessen and Mertz of the reasons.

When you find some points of agreement between Acts and Paul's letters, and some points of disagreement, how can that show that aLuke did not use the letters? I think that is more an argument that aLuke used the letters for his own purposes when it suited him, and changed them when he felt like it.

The lack of a martyrdom account cuts both ways. What evidence do we have that Paul was martyred? Maybe he wasn't, and that was a later church myth.

Layman · 01-31-2003, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
I do not have the book in front of me, but I think that was the basis of his argument. He referred to an article describing the "holy internet" as I recall.

---

When did Kummel write, and what was the basis of his opinion? Did he in particular consider Mason's arguments and reject them, or refer to critics who did? A brief internet search shows a date of 1975 for one translation and 1996 for another; I think that both of these predate Mason, who seems to be in the forefront of modern scholarship on Josephus.

How did you determine that Mason was at the forefront on this issue? And what revolutionary idea fact did he discovery that his predeccessors missed?

You asked for a "poll" of scholars. That's a little silly, but I attemptd to give you a liberal source that you might accept. One who expressed some thoughts on where scholarship was on the issue. If you have some evidence that Mason has moved the conensensus on this issue I would be happy to see it.

Layman · 01-31-2003, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
I do not have the book in front of me, but I think that was the basis of his argument. He referred to an article describing the "holy internet" as I recall.

There is an article entitled, "The Holy Internet: Communication Between Churches in the First Christian Churches," by Michael B. Thompson.

I just reviewed it again and saw nothing indicating that Acts used Paul's letters as sources. I did see where Thompson mentioned that some of Paul's letters may have been intended for "more than one congregation." But even so he does not argue that they were for general ciculation, or indeed, does he argue they were generally circulated.

Toto · 01-31-2003, 11:11 AM

Can you cite a recent scholar who has argued against the reliance of Luke on Josephus? Or an early one? Preferably a scholar who is looking at the text, and doesn't base his argument on the idea that Luke-Acts must have been written around 60 AD by a companion of Paul's.

I will get back to you on the "holy internet" later.

Layman · 01-31-2003, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Can you cite a recent scholar who has argued against the reliance of Luke on Josephus? Or an early one? Preferably a scholar who is looking at the text, and doesn't base his argument on the idea that Luke-Acts must have been written around 60 AD by a companion of Paul's.

I will get back to you on the "holy internet" later.

Boy, Toto, I can see why you get such inaccurate ideas about what the state of scholarship is. Like arguing that most scholars denied the TF was partially Josephan until Meier wrote his piece when if fact no matter how you counted it the majority scholars had long ago reached the same conclusion as Meier.

Kummel does not think that Luke was written by a companion of Paul and does not date it around 60 AD.

Witherington does not date Acts until 75-85 CE.

F.F. Bruce does not date Acts until 75-85 CE.

Both reject the idea as well.

You have Mason's book. Does he claim to represent the majority opinion?

Vorkosigan · 01-31-2003, 02:04 PM

Sure, but it was not on the front burner. I was actually expecting more resistence to the idea there were substantial similarities. We can get to this one time permitting.

Why? New Testament historical methodology being so awful -- and the "consensus" is so heavily influenced by the Christian position on Jesus -- why should we find anything objectionable in Paul's letters and Acts being related?

Vorkosigan

Toto · 01-31-2003, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
. . .
Kummel does not think that Luke was written by a companion of Paul and does not date it around 60 AD.

Witherington does not date Acts until 75-85 CE.

F.F. Bruce does not date Acts until 75-85 CE.

Both reject the idea as well.

You have Mason's book. Does he claim to represent the majority opinion?

I seem to be having trouble getting you to answer the question.

What is the basis of Kummel's opinion on Luke and Josephus? Anything beyond a survey of authorities?

The last time we talked about this, I think I recall the main argument against the reliance of Luke on Josephus was that Luke had to have been written earlier than 93 CE, because it was written by Paul's companion.

Mason's book is a guide to reading Josephus for yourself. He is concerned about reading the evidence, not relying on authority or majority opinion. I don't have the book with me at work, but I will check what he says about other arguments tonight. (Proving I have no life, as if that needed more proof. . .)

Toto · 01-31-2003, 09:48 PM

In answer to the question of the majority opinion of the relationship between Luke-Acts and Josephus, Steve Mason says in Josephus and the New Testament , p. 185:

Quote:

At various points in this study, we have noted especially close parallels between Josephus' narratives and the two NT volumes known as Luke and Acts. . .

They have been the subject of much debate. In 1894, one German scholar published a detailed study arguing that the author of Luke-Acts used Josephus as a source. In the following year, another argued that Josephus used Luke-Acts. Neither proposition has much of a following today, because of the significant differences between the two works in their accounts of the same events. A third position, that the two writers shared common oral and written sources, has more adherents because it allows some flexibility: Josephus and "Luke" could have merely heard similar stories and read the same materials.

However, the question of the Josephan/Lukan parallels is resolved, it is illuminating to review them in their own right. Usually scholars investigating the question have isolated and compared the common episodes in the two accounts. Some have also looked at shared vocabulary. For our purposes, however, it will be useful to place those particular affinities within a larger context. . . . As to whether one author used the other as a source, the generic parallels can say nothing, for many other works of the period shared similar features. Nor can the commonly reported incidents prove dependece, in the absence of entended verbal agreement. The third kind of coincidence, however--of aim, themes, and vocabulary--seems to suggest that Luke-Acts is building its case on the foundation of Josephus' defense of Judaism. . .

{pages of detailed analysis follow}
[p.224]
In short, we cannot prove beyond doubt that Luke knew the writings of Josephus. If he did not, however, we have a nearly incredible series of coincidences, which require that Luke know something that closely approximated Josephus' narrative in several distinct ways. . . I find it easier to believe that Luke knew something of Josephus' work than that he independently arrived at these points of agreement. Nevertheless, we await a thorough study of the matter.

Unfortunately, Amazon.com says this book is not available, but it looks like you might get it here , here, or probably other places.

It is worth reading, not only for the details, but for the insight into methodology (and its limitations.)

So there you have it. Mason shows no need to confine himself to a "majority opinion", and he gives you all the reasons; but more than that, he invites you to look at the evidence for yourself and challenge whatever the conventional wisdom is.

Toto · 01-31-2003, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
. . .You asked for a "poll" of scholars. That's a little silly, but I attemptd to give you a liberal source that you might accept. One who expressed some thoughts on where scholarship was on the issue. . . . .

I guess I missed this the first time around. What's this nonsense about "a liberal source that [I] might accept"? I'm not a liberal Christian, and I'm not interested in accepting things on authority, especially if you are the one asserting the authority.

===

Okay, I said I would look at Brodie's arguments.

He cites Thompson's conclusions that "The churches from AD 30 to 70 had the motivation and the means to communicate often and in depth with each other." (p. 68) He cites Bauckham as saying that "The early Christian movement was a network of communities in constant communication with each other, by messengers, letters, and movements of leaders and teachers." Then he cites Loveday Alexander on the production of ancient books.

He concludes, "Given this background of written communication, it is plausible that the evangelists knew of the epistles and that, if they wished, they could get copies of them."

Earlier, Bodie emphasizes that he is doing literary analysis, not history. He states:

Quote:

In comparison to theology and history, the literary aspect is more tangible and verifiable. No on has ever seen God, and therefore one is careful in speaking about theology. Furthermore, the origin of Christianity is two thousand years away, so one is careful also in speaking about the events of the first century. But the text is here. This means that on an issue such as the evangelists' possible use of the epistles, the primary guide is not theology, such as the differences in theology between Luke and Paul. Nor is the primary guide history, such as a picture of Jesus and of early communities. Rather, it is appropriate to concentrate first of all on the text and on the relationship between them.

This is not attributed, but this view of things is derived from Derrida.

Vinnie · 02-01-2003, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Most Venerable Bede: You seem to have slept through most of this discussion, if not a lot more.

Reason #1 to think that Luke-Acts were not written by Luke or an eyewitness of any sort: The two books never claim eyewitness status. aLuke claims to have used "many sources", but never to have been an eyewitness. So there is not a case of "Luke being who he says he is" because he never says.

That occurs in the beginning of GLuke of which Luke-companion-of-Paul (LCP) was not present during the life of Jesus. What suggests the same for parts of Acts? It could contain some first-hand material in light of the comments opening GLuke.

Quote:

I am quite sure that the "we" passages are some sort of literary device.

We disgree here.

Quote:

The standard argument against Luke-Acts being written by a companion of Paul is that the dating is too late,

Well if its late second century then you'd be correct. But I don't see how a later first century dating rules this out?

Quote:

the theological perspective is too different, etc.

I tend to think that is an overstatement though there are obvious differences.

Quote:

When you find some points of agreement between Acts and Paul's letters, and some points of disagreement, how can that show that aLuke did not use the letters? I think that is more an argument that aLuke used the letters for his own purposes when it suited him, and changed them when he felt like it.

Actually, why couldn't Luke not use the letters but just alter tradition he no longer considered apropos? You seem to have undercut your own position (assuming the differences between Acts and the Pauline corpus are not a severe as you suggest).

I think this is all we can say on the issue of whether Luke wrote Acts:

1) it was written decades after Paul's death, 2) we have to make the allowance that that there were details about Paul's early life the companion did not know, 3) this companion simplified and reordered information even as he did in the Gospel of Luke which drew from Mark 4) he rethought some of Paul's thoughts which were deemed as no longer apropos (a true theologian).

Though we have no way of being certain LCP did author it but its not impossible by any means.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-31-2003, 11:11 AM	#44
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Can you cite a recent scholar who has argued against the reliance of Luke on Josephus? Or an early one? Preferably a scholar who is looking at the text, and doesn't base his argument on the idea that Luke-Acts must have been written around 60 AD by a companion of Paul's. I will get back to you on the "holy internet" later.

01-31-2003, 02:04 PM	#46
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Sure, but it was not on the front burner. I was actually expecting more resistence to the idea there were substantial similarities. We can get to this one time permitting. Why? New Testament historical methodology being so awful -- and the "consensus" is so heavily influenced by the Christian position on Jesus -- why should we find anything objectionable in Paul's letters and Acts being related? Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.