Freethought & Rationalism Archive

James The Least · 06-21-2013, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Semitic author of Luke:
(Primarily drawing upon James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, 2009)
Though the prologue of Luke 1:1-4 is in such classic Greek that the author is assumed to be a gentile and why not as Luke who seems present in Acts 16-28, there is really little other indication than these verses and chapters to assume so. Semitisms throughout Luke show that the final editor employed lots of Semitisms.

Yes. Luke read the Septuagint and Josephus and copied them. That is why there are Semitisms in Luke. The author was not ethnically Jewish.

Edwards argues at length against mere Septuagintualisms at 156-162. "Why would Luke seek to imitate the LXX only when he is not following Matthew and/or Mark? " (citing W. Most,("Did St. Luke Imitate the Septuagint?" JSNT `1982 p. 38: "But we can...see a very plausible reason for the variation if we take Luke at his word and affirm that he did use documents.")

What does Edwards say about Josephus's influence on Luke?

James The Least · 06-21-2013, 07:10 PM

On page 169, Edwards treats John 19:20 and Acts 21:37 as historical facts.:constern01:

Toto · 06-21-2013, 07:32 PM

There is a review of Edwards by James McGrath here.

Quote:

...

This leads naturally to the subject of the fourth chapter, namely the strikingly high number of Semitisms in Luke. This chapter includes another problematic statement related to the linguistic question: “Luke…does not appear to have been a Jew, and it is unlikely that he thought in either Hebrew or Aramaic” (p.128). Apart from the problematic way of depicting how one’s native language affects speech in another, Edwards ignores the fact that Aramaic in its various dialects was not spoken only by Jews. Luke could have been a non-Jew from Syria, for instance, perhaps one raised bilingually, as many educated individuals would have been in that place and time. But this is never considered. Although Edwards draws on sources with linguistic expertise that make a strong case for Luke’s Gospel containing Hebraisms and not merely Semitisms of a vague or indistinct sort, he also mentions the fact that Semitisms and Hebraisms are found not only in the Gospel of Luke, but also in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke’s second volume. This cries out for explanation, since there is no reason to think that the Hebrew Gospel included an account of the early post-Easter church. Be that as it may, Edwards certainly draws attention to a feature of the Gospel of Luke, which is especially characteristic of Luke’s special material, that deserves more attention. Why Edwards decides to coin the phrase “hyper-Semitic” as a way of referring to these verses is beyond me (pp.145-146). On the whole, however, Edwards’ prose is delightful to read, even if one is not persuaded by a particular argument.

Chapter 5 focuses on whether Hebrew was the language of the “Hebrew Gospel.” Once again, linguistic matters are treated in a way that is problematic. For instance, Edwards calls kai egeneto a “qualified Septuagintism” since it would involve Luke imitating “only those parts of the LXX dependent on a Hebrew Vorlage” (p.158). But that was most of the Septuagint, and constituted the core and most famous parts of the Jewish Scriptures even in Greek. Likewise, the suggestion that Luke was not imitating the Septuagint or heavily influenced by it because of (1) failure to produce the LXX word-for-word in certain instances, or (2) using a phrase that is rare in the LXX, is unpersuasive. . . .

So it appears that Edwards does not think that Luke was a Jew, but that the author of what is called 'L', the special material that Luke does not share with the other synoptics, was Jewish.

Edwards teaches theology at Whitworth University. He has a PhD from Fuller Theological Seminary.

Toto · 06-21-2013, 07:46 PM

Mark Goodacre on Edwards:
James Edwards on McIver and Carroll

James Edwards on Andrew Gregory on the Gospel of the Ebionites

So it appears that Edwards has not convinced his peers.

Chili · 06-21-2013, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The background to this comical event is that there were many Diaspora Jews living in Cyrene, Africa including Mark's family. Aristobulus, Mark's father, took his family from Cyrene to Jerusalem after encountering many setbacks. Aristobulus also had a cousin who came along and eventually became Peter's wife (Paul notes that Peter was married in 1 Corinthians 9:5 ). Since Mark was a relative of Peter then he possibly was an eye witness to the healing of Peter's mother-in-law and wrote about it in the gMark. The above information is taken from Thomas C Oden's book, The African Memory of Mark. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

So it is a famlily affair now you say?

Not sue if I can put this gently enough, but if Mark was so great, and if the mythology is for the survival and prosperity of the tribe and the nations beyond that at large, does Odin's book show any evidence of this in Africa there?

And if not, is there something wrong with the African kind of Christians maybe?

James The Least · 06-21-2013, 08:42 PM

Page 158 - Edwards argues that Luke's excessive use of the Semitic (LXX) transliteration of Jerusalem, Ἱερουσαλήμ, as opposed to the standard Hellenistic spelling, Ἱεροσόλυμα, which appears in Greek books like Tobit, Esdras and Maccabees, as well as the other gospels, means that "if Luke is using the LXX, he is choosing to follow only those parts of the LXX translated from the Hebrew" -- therefore, "it's a qualified Septuagintism but an unqualified Hebraism." (His emphasis.)

It's quite possible that Luke's copy of the LXX did not have those late books in it. This is never even considered. The better question to ask is why Luke is using that spelling when Mark and Matthew prefer the Hellenistic one.

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.

Nobody said that Luke is solely copying the LXX and Josephus. He is also copying from the Christian books written before him. We need to check those, too, before we start devising wild theories about how Luke preferred to read (or not read) the LXX.

Ἱερουσαλήμ appears 77 times in the NT, 64 of them in Luke-Acts. Here are the most noteworthy of the 13 non-Lukan appearances:

Romans 15:19 N
BIB: Ἰερουσαλὴμ (Jerusalem as destination for Paul)

Romans 15:25 N
BIB: Ἰερουσαλὴμ (Jerusalem as destination for Paul)

Romans 15:26 N
BIB: Ἰερουσαλήμ (Jerusalem as destination for Paul)

Romans 15:31 N
BIB: Ἰερουσαλὴμ (Jerusalem as destination for Paul)

1 Corinthians 16:3 N
BIB: Ἰερουσαλήμ (Jerusalem as destination for Paul)

Galatians 4:25 N
BIB: νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ (present Jerusalem= the "mother" of the Jews), in contrast to:

Galatians 4:26 N
BIB: ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα (above Jerusalem =the "mother" of us Christians)

Hebrews 12:22 N
BIB: ζῶντος Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ (Heavenly Jerusalem)

Revelation 3:12 N
BIB: τῆς καινῆς Ἰερουσαλήμ ἡ καταβαίνουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Heavenly Jerusalem)

Revelation 21:2 N
BIB: τὴν ἁγίαν Ἰερουσαλὴμ καινὴν εἶδον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Heavenly Jerusalem)

Revelation 21:10 N
BIB: τὴν ἁγίαν Ἰερουσαλὴμ καταβαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Heavenly Jerusalem)

James The Least · 06-21-2013, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is a review of Edwards by James McGrath here.

Although Edwards draws on sources with linguistic expertise that make a strong case for Luke’s Gospel containing Hebraisms and not merely Semitisms of a vague or indistinct sort, he also mentions the fact that Semitisms and Hebraisms are found not only in the Gospel of Luke, but also in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke’s second volume. This cries out for explanation, since there is no reason to think that the Hebrew Gospel included an account of the early post-Easter church.

An excellent point. Edwards makes a big deal of the Semitic Ἱερουσαλήμ in gLuke -- supposedly throwing light on a Hebrew source for "Special Luke" -- but doesn't address why, if this is so, the same spelling occurs 37 times in Acts.

aa5874 · 06-21-2013, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Thank you for the research in your Post #12, aa,
But it is limited pretty much to marginal notes that could have assimilated to Luke or Josephus from the other's text.
Might we compromise on your last sentence saying instead of "The author" something like "A redactor or copyist" and dropping the final five words as not proven? Since Josephus was a Jew anyone who read him could also be a Jew.

But even that grants too much, as Josephus could have assimilated information from Luke.

I have merely exposed your fallacy that the author of gLuke must have been Jewish.

We now know that the author of gLuke was NOT Jewish, was NOT aware of Jewish customs of burial and used information found ONLY in the writings of Josephus.

The fact that the author of gLuke copied gMark and added more "details" that contradict Jewish customs for burial is a clear confirmation that gLuke's author was NOT Jewish.

James The Least · 06-22-2013, 07:17 AM

Page 157-58
Καὶ Ἐγένετο ("it happened," "and it came to pass," etc.) is used 2,000+ times in the LXX but not in the (native Greek language) Apocrypha. Luke loves this expression, and uses it way more than any other NT writer.

Edwards once again leaps to a conclusion. "...If Καὶ Ἐγένετο is a Septuagintism, it's a qualified Septuagintism, for it is an instance of Luke imitating only those parts of the LXX dependent on a Hebrew Vorlage. It is an unqualified Hebraism, however."

This is interesting, though meaningless. Luke is imitating closely the long narrative books like Judges, Chronicles and Kings, and needed an expression that would both move the action along and "sound Biblical." Joseph Smith excessively abused Καὶ Ἐγένετο for the same reason. That's all there is to it.

Καὶ Ἐγένετο is a Septuagintism. Luke copied it from the LXX. Full stop. It is not a "qualified" Septuagintism because it isn't used in native Greek texts.

James The Least · 06-22-2013, 07:50 AM

On page 176, Edwards assumes Acts 21-22 (Paul speaking Aramaic to "the Jews" who had just tried to kill him) to be historical. "The unexpected hush of the crowd ... suggests that he spoke in Hebrew," i.e. not Aramaic.

Bible scholars who take Acts seriously as eyewitness history are credulous fools. There isn't a more polite way of saying it.

06-22-2013, 07:17 AM	#29
James The Least Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: USA Posts: 393	Καὶ Ἐγένετο Page 157-58 Καὶ Ἐγένετο ("it happened," "and it came to pass," etc.) is used 2,000+ times in the LXX but not in the (native Greek language) Apocrypha. Luke loves this expression, and uses it way more than any other NT writer. Edwards once again leaps to a conclusion. "...If Καὶ Ἐγένετο is a Septuagintism, it's a qualified Septuagintism, for it is an instance of Luke imitating only those parts of the LXX dependent on a Hebrew Vorlage. It is an unqualified Hebraism, however." This is interesting, though meaningless. Luke is imitating closely the long narrative books like Judges, Chronicles and Kings, and needed an expression that would both move the action along and "sound Biblical." Joseph Smith excessively abused Καὶ Ἐγένετο for the same reason. That's all there is to it. Καὶ Ἐγένετο is a Septuagintism. Luke copied it from the LXX. Full stop. It is not a "qualified" Septuagintism because it isn't used in native Greek texts.

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

06-21-2013, 07:10 PM	#22
James The Least Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: USA Posts: 393	On page 169, Edwards treats John 19:20 and Acts 21:37 as historical facts.:constern01:

06-21-2013, 07:46 PM	#24
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Mark Goodacre on Edwards: James Edwards on McIver and Carroll James Edwards on Andrew Gregory on the Gospel of the Ebionites So it appears that Edwards has not convinced his peers.

06-21-2013, 08:42 PM	#26
James The Least Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: USA Posts: 393	Page 158 - Edwards argues that Luke's excessive use of the Semitic (LXX) transliteration of Jerusalem, Ἱερουσαλήμ, as opposed to the standard Hellenistic spelling, Ἱεροσόλυμα, which appears in Greek books like Tobit, Esdras and Maccabees, as well as the other gospels, means that "if Luke is using the LXX, he is choosing to follow only those parts of the LXX translated from the Hebrew" -- therefore, "it's a qualified Septuagintism but an unqualified Hebraism." (His emphasis.) It's quite possible that Luke's copy of the LXX did not have those late books in it. This is never even considered. The better question to ask is why Luke is using that spelling when Mark and Matthew prefer the Hellenistic one. 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. Nobody said that Luke is solely copying the LXX and Josephus. He is also copying from the Christian books written before him. We need to check those, too, before we start devising wild theories about how Luke preferred to read (or not read) the LXX. Ἱερουσαλήμ appears 77 times in the NT, 64 of them in Luke-Acts. Here are the most noteworthy of the 13 non-Lukan appearances: Romans 15:19 N BIB: Ἰερουσαλὴμ (Jerusalem as destination for Paul) Romans 15:25 N BIB: Ἰερουσαλὴμ (Jerusalem as destination for Paul) Romans 15:26 N BIB: Ἰερουσαλήμ (Jerusalem as destination for Paul) Romans 15:31 N BIB: Ἰερουσαλὴμ (Jerusalem as destination for Paul) 1 Corinthians 16:3 N BIB: Ἰερουσαλήμ (Jerusalem as destination for Paul) Galatians 4:25 N BIB: νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ (present Jerusalem= the "mother" of the Jews), in contrast to: Galatians 4:26 N BIB: ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα (above Jerusalem =the "mother" of us Christians) Hebrews 12:22 N BIB: ζῶντος Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ (Heavenly Jerusalem) Revelation 3:12 N BIB: τῆς καινῆς Ἰερουσαλήμ ἡ καταβαίνουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Heavenly Jerusalem) Revelation 21:2 N BIB: τὴν ἁγίαν Ἰερουσαλὴμ καινὴν εἶδον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Heavenly Jerusalem) Revelation 21:10 N BIB: τὴν ἁγίαν Ἰερουσαλὴμ καταβαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Heavenly Jerusalem)

06-22-2013, 07:50 AM	#30
James The Least Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: USA Posts: 393	On page 176, Edwards assumes Acts 21-22 (Paul speaking Aramaic to "the Jews" who had just tried to kill him) to be historical. "The unexpected hush of the crowd ... suggests that he spoke in Hebrew," i.e. not Aramaic. Bible scholars who take Acts seriously as eyewitness history are credulous fools. There isn't a more polite way of saying it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.