Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Adam · 06-23-2013, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

But turning back to Luke, David Allen is also running with the idea of questioning the ethnicity of Luke. Allen takes his hypothesis a bit farther than James Edward's and in a book entitled, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, presents his hypothesis. Brian Small has an excellent review of Allen's book and disagrees with Allen on many points but seems to be in agreement concerning Luke's ethnicity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Allen

Allen contends that “Luke was a Hellenistic Jew with cosmopolitan training and interests” (266). Allen states that early Patristic writers never identify Luke as a Gentile. While this is certainly an argument from silence, I believe Allen’s point is that if Luke was a Gentile, this would have been mentioned by ancient writers. Allen surmises that Luke can be identified with the Lucius of Romans 16:21, who is referred to as Paul’s “kinsman,” that is, a fellow Jew. Allen amasses a great deal of evidence to support his claim that Luke was Jewish. Luke evinces great knowledge and interest in Jewish customs, religious practices, including interest in priestly matters and in Jerusalem and the Temple. Luke is also heavily interested in the relationship of Judaism to the Church. Allen claims that Luke depicts “the Jewish Christian church [as] part of the reconstituted people of God” (293). While Luke demonstrates a great interest in the Gentiles’ acceptance of the gospel, it is Israel’s initial acceptance of the gospel that opens the way for the Gentiles (296). Luke’s profound understanding of the OT has deeply influenced the shaping of his narrative. Allen claims that Luke’s use of Scripture resembles most closely the book of Hebrews’ usage of the OT (309). Space prohibits me from outlining Allen’s other linguistic and conceptual evidence that betrays a Jewish author (310-319). I think Allen makes a strong case for Luke’s Jewishness in this chapter.
Review of David Allen's Lukan Authorship of Hebrews

Revisiting the quote from Post #35, the quotation is from David Allen's review, not Arnoldo.
OK, then, we (I, anyway) can re-establish the Jewish man Luke as the author of gLuke now that we can regard those Semitisms as his. Consequently, we need to acknowledge that the supposedly most-Lukan Prologue 1:1-4 is not necessarily his, but affixed in stilted Greek as the most appropriate formal dedication from Bishop Simon of Jerusalem to the former Sadduccee High Priest Theophilus. All of L and those hyper-Semitic editorial verses revert to Luke as the Jewish author who wrote down what Simon had told him. (He fits so well into the L that is so predominantly Luke 7:36 to his name again at 24:34.) Some more accomplished Greek speaker(s) translated Q and Markan sections of Luke that he copied in to Luke. (Possibly the first Greek Q and Mark translations still needed improvement, which the man Luke provided, but he did not de-Semitize his own additions.)

arnoldo · 06-23-2013, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

So you're not buying the argument that Lucius, whom Paul identifies as “my fellow jew” in Romans 16:21 was the author of the Gospel of Luke?

"My fellow Jews" is the NIV translation. συγγενεῖς is typically translated "kinsmen." It literally means "together born."

Yeah, it's hard to prove whether Luke was jewish or a gentile, let alone if he even existed in the first place. In Acts , it's even difficult to distinguish if the english word which is translated as “church” is referring at times to a jewish synagogue, a home where members of a synagogue met, or something else. There is a hypothesis that gentile believers in Jesus, such as Luke perhaps, initially primarily joined jewish synagogues. Membership into this jewish community provided important benefits including the ability to be exempt from participating in roman cultic duties. However, according to Magnus Zetterholm, complex sociological/historical factors led to an increased distinction between jewish and gentiles members of various synagogues eventualy leading to the formation of christianity in Antioch. (or via: amazon.co.uk) .

aa5874 · 06-23-2013, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Paul only uses the Hellenistic version three times, all clustered in Galatians around the famous "I went to Jerusalem to see James, the Lord's brother" passages. He uses Ἱερουσαλήμ seven times across Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians, to describe both a destination in his travels (important to Acts), as well as to describe "the heavenly Jerusalem" as opposed to "the present Jerusalem" occupied by his enemies, "the Jews."

Simplest explanation? Luke copied his hero Paul in preferring Ἱερουσαλήμ over Ἱεροσόλυμα. He was trying to be historically accurate by using the word Paul supposedly used during the period that he was documenting in Acts. There is no need to posit a deliberate Lukan preference for the "Semitic" version because "the Hebrew vorlage" of the LXX uses that spelling, while the native Greek books do not. (Is there any textual evidence that Luke was even aware of books like Tobit and Maccabees?) This just unnecessarily complicates the matter, seeking patterns where there are none.

It is not logical at all that the author of gLuke copied the Pauline Corpus version of Ἱερουσαλήμ when the author made no reference to Paul or the Pauline Corpus.

The author of gLuke made DIRECT references to the books of the Prophets including Isaiah, Jonah and David's Psalms.

Even parts of the genealogy of Joseph in gLuke is found in the book of Chronicles of the Septuagint.

The books of Isaiah, Chronicles and the Psalms used Ἱερουσαλήμ about 200 times and Ἱερουσαλήμ is found over 600 times in the Septuagint.

The simplest and most logical explanation is that the author of gLuke used the Septuagint.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.