Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-22-2013, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

...

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

The more polite way would be "Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary." Keep this in mind when apologists talk about credentials a peer review in this field.

Adam · 06-22-2013, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James, post #30

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

.

That's in a "we" section where the author would be presumed to be present. Edwards would seem to have justification for regarding this part as historical. He utilizes this as part of his evidence that Hebrew was till spoken and written in certain cases.

You assume that standard references are necessarily right that Paul spoke Aramaic, not the Hebrew that Acts 21:40 and 22:2 state? Edwards is aware of what they claim, but argues against it. (I'm not a great fan in general of Edwards' reasoning or conclusions, but his Appendix II is marvelous.)

Toto · 06-22-2013, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by James, post #30

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

.

That's in a "we" section where the author would be presumed to be present.

An uncalled for presumption. Do you not know of fiction that is written in the first person?

arnoldo · 06-22-2013, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

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?

eh, the Coptics are doing just fine in Africa and even even the wiki for the Church of Alexandria states it's founder was Mark. Some time ago I went to various coptic websites of African churches and found the following painting of Mark which may be of interest.
N/A

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:

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

James The Least · 06-22-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by James, post #30

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

.

That's in a "we" section where the author would be presumed to be present. Edwards would seem to have justification for regarding this part as historical. He utilizes this as part of his evidence that Hebrew was till spoken and written in certain cases.

You assume that standard references are necessarily right that Paul spoke Aramaic, not the Hebrew that Acts 21:40 and 22:2 state? Edwards is aware of what they claim, but argues against it. (I'm not a great fan in general of Edwards' reasoning or conclusions, but his Appendix II is marvelous.)

There is no reason to assume the author was present in the "we" passages in Acts. Other ancient texts shift back and forth from third person to first.

James The Least · 06-22-2013, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

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.

"Allen’s point is that if Luke was a Gentile, this would have been mentioned by ancient writers."

And if Luke were Jewish, then this too would have been mentioned by ancient writers -- but "Joudaioi" could be any ethnicity, so even if ancient authors explicitly referred to Luke as a "Judaioi" (which they don't), it would say nothing about his ethnicity. It would mean he was a theosobei, a convert to the Judean religion. The fact that he's a Christian writing in the second century is a strong indication that he is not an ethnic Jew -- though, of course, anything is possible. But we need to concentrate on what is probable.

All Gentile Christian bishops had "great knowledge and interest in Jewish customs, religious practices, including interest in priestly matters and in Jerusalem and the Temple." This says absolutely nothing about their ethnicity.

aa5874 · 06-22-2013, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

There is no reason to assume the author was present in the "we" passages in Acts. Other ancient texts shift back and forth from third person to first.

The author of Acts did not shift back and forth from third to first person when he wrote of his travels with Saul/Paul.

What some other unknown authors did cannot be assume to have been done in Acts.

By the way, when does "we" in Acts include the author?

When we examine Acts, it is clear that the author claimed he traveled and PRAYED with Saul/Paul.

Acts 21:5 KJV

Quote:

And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way ; and they all brought us on our way , with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed .

If we cannot logically assume the "we" passages included the author then we cannot assume they refer to Saul/Paul.

arnoldo · 06-22-2013, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

"Allen’s point is that if Luke was a Gentile, this would have been mentioned by ancient writers."

And if Luke were Jewish, then this too would have been mentioned by ancient writers -- . . . .

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?

outhouse · 06-22-2013, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

"Allen’s point is that if Luke was a Gentile, this would have been mentioned by ancient writers."

And if Luke were Jewish, then this too would have been mentioned by ancient writers -- . . . .

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?

Why would he.

So far I like his work in this thread.

James The Least · 06-23-2013, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

"Allen’s point is that if Luke was a Gentile, this would have been mentioned by ancient writers."

And if Luke were Jewish, then this too would have been mentioned by ancient writers -- . . . .

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."

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.