Post Reply
Page 6 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12 Next
7 years ago  ::  Jan 03, 2008 - 7:13PM #51
MisterC
Posts: 1,865
Pardon the typos... I just "discovered" this and am excited! Thanks, Chuck, for getting me on this roll... or is it role?
Dennis
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2008 - 8:44AM #52
MisterC
Posts: 1,865
I don't know, Walther. I wasn't at the convention. (I'm not a JS scholar.) I do have the essays (The Seminar Papers). One of the papers is "The Stoning of Stephen and the Ethics of Historiography," by Shelly Matthews. I am looking at it for the first time (I was busy when I got the papers) and I am scaring myself, since Shelly compares/contrasts Stephen's stoning with James' death, which the author considers "useful as a resource for constructing historical narrative of violence among Jews in first century Judea. Let me quote some of the last paragraphs:

"Josephus' story of James, li8ke the Gospel stories of the crucifixion of Jesus and unlike the story of Stephen, provides at least some hint of the machinery of the imperial system at work. Moreover, the fact that Josephus does not refer to James dying either as a Christian or because of his Christianity, reminds us that in this first generation after Jesus, it is not necessary to assume that ones belief in Jesus was the central fact of ones identity and the sole explanation for ones suffering. Furthermore that James dies with "certain others," who are not identified as having any connection to Jesus evokes a situation of common suffering across a spectrum of religious orientations. Finally, Josephus provides a precious character sketch, one so incongruous with mainstream biblical scholarship that it is seldom contemplated that of leading, law-observant Jews (Pharisees?) first disturbed by the death of a leader in the Jesus movement and then engaging in political action to requite it."  The author prefers the James story for constructing history.

Not having checked my mail in a couple of days and not having the present issue of 4th R, I'm not certain that this was the paper about which the votes were taken, but the author makes a good point. Of course, I have been calling all "persecution" as recorded in the Christian Testament anachronistic for the first century, up until around the first Roman Jewish war. That is one of maybe 100 reasons I place the Paulines later. (As Doughty says, there is no way to know what these persecutions were, who did the persecuting, etc... Paul persecuting, people persecuting Paul and so forth. When one reads Josephus and Philo, the majority of the pre-War persecution is by this feller named Pilate, a Roman. And, he was killing Judeans, Samaritans, anyone he could get his greasy paws on!
Dennis
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2008 - 8:54AM #53
GeneStecher
Posts: 556
Here's the quote posted earlier: 4thR, Jan-Feb, 2008, 19-20, Fall Meeting 2007: Report of the Acts Seminar, Dennis E. Smith, Ballot Four-Acts Seminar, "Stephen and the Ethics of Historiography", Shelly Matthews:

It is anachronistic to speak of “Jews” killing “Christians” in the first century of the common era.
Fellows - .91 Red
Associates - .92 Red
Anachronistic = “The representation of something as existing or happening at other than its proper or historical time.”

P. 20, "...the story of Stephen's martyrdom fails on several criteria to qualify as historical....Her paper argued not only that the story is not historical but also that the traditional reading of it as historical has been closely associated with an anti-Judaism agenda in the writing of Christian history."

Gene
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2008 - 9:27AM #54
RJMcElwain
Posts: 3,001
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Speaking of the latest Fourth R, in the front, Arthur Dewey suggests that there is a massive shift among the Scholars for a second century, anti-Marcion dating for Acts. If we assume such, and if we continue to postulate that GLuke and Acts have the same author, does that suggest a second century Luke, or at least a later dating?[/COLOR]
Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2008 - 9:32AM #55
GeneStecher
Posts: 556
[QUOTE=MisterC;185374]The name “Nazareth” is not found outside the Christian Testament before late third, fourth century, and that on an inscription......



What might that have to do with "second century NT?" Well, for one it shows that there is a large possibility that there was no Nazareth in the first century. Why is this important? It shows a. a gross misunderstanding of the term "Nazirite" by obviously Gentile copyists. Would such a lack of an actual "hometown" of Jesus have gone uncontested, had it been a tradition in the first century in Galilee/Judea? It shows a misunderstanding of Mark. Why would he write, "What have you to do with use, Jesus of Narareth?" (Mark 1) Why attach that name? What is the significance of the hometown in a Capernaum synagogue? Nothing whatsoever.  If, however, one reads this another way, another ORIGINAL meaning is found: "What have you to do with us,k Jesus the Nazirite? Have you come to destroy you. I know who you are, the Holy One of God." The Nazirites WERE the "holy ones of God, set apart from ordinary folk.

I get rather ascerbic from time to time, but lawsy, folks, if you just will let go for a second and see possibilities other than the status quo, these things might excite you as they do me!

Dennis[/QUOTE]

I'm not quite sure what all the "excitement" is about.  This information about the obscurity of Nazareth and lack of external attestation has been around for a long time and is summarized in Crossan and Reed, "Excavating Jesus," 2002.

[1] About the "inscription," on page 22, we find this quote, "The only epigraphic evidence for Nazareth comes from a Jewish synagogue inscription, written in Hebrew.....a 3rd to 4th century synagogue plaque was discovered at Caesarea Maritima in 1962, containing the earliest occurence of the name Nazareth in a non-Christian source.....a list of traditional locations where Jewish priests resettled after the Roman Emperor Hadrian banned all Jews from Jerusalem in 135 CE.  Of the 24 priestly families who had earlier rotated their weekly service in Jerusalem's Temple, the eighteenth priestly family , which went by the name of Hapizzez, resettled in Nazareth.  This inscription underscores Nazareth's Jewish character inasmuch as it was considered an appropriate home for refugee priests."

[2] About the confusion of Nazareth and Nazarite, etc.  Mark 1:9 reads, "In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee...."  It's like someone asked, "Where's Jesus from?" and someone answered, "I understand he came from Nazareth in the Galilee."  Clearly, we're dealing with a location and not group membership: althen (came) Iasous (Jesus) apo (from) Nazaret (Nazareth) tas (of) Galilaias (Galilee).  The Lexicon lists the Greek forms of Nazareth as: Nazara, Nazaret, Nazareth.

***My usual problem with "Nazareth" as an accurate designation for the hometown of Jesus is the seeming incredulity of its relatively short walking distance to the major metropolitan area of Sepphoris and to a major trade route, and yet the gospels do not mention these places at all and are so parochial in their presentation of Jesus and his activity.  One even strains to see an allusion in Jesus' teachings.  (Interestingly , regarding Mary Magdalene, Magdala sits along the southern coast of the Sea of Galilee, with Tiberius a short distance to the South)

Gene
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2008 - 9:43AM #56
GeneStecher
Posts: 556
[QUOTE=RJMcElwain;186539][COLOR="DarkRed"]Speaking of the latest Fourth R, in the front, Arthur Dewey suggests that there is a massive shift among the Scholars for a second century, anti-Marcion dating for Acts. If we assume such, and if we continue to postulate that GLuke and Acts have the same author, does that suggest a second century Luke, or at least a later dating?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Bob,

In my recollection, solid scholars never did consider Lk to be written before 90-95 CE.  The JS scholars seem to place Acts around 115-120 CE, so that's only a 20-30yr period to work with.  Now, if Lk had Mt or some proto-form of it, then that could easily push Lk into the first decade of the second century.  But maybe Acts was written after Marcion was excommunicated in 144 CE and was so successful in establishing churches as per Justin Martyr writing in the 150's.  That could make Lk much later, as well.  As you can see, in the other threads on mutual vocabulary, we're still trying to figure out if Lk had some form of Mt, but Mt and the material common to Mt and Lk definitely have some vocab similarities.

Gene

Gene
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2008 - 9:57AM #57
chuckj
Posts: 443
[QUOTE=GeneStecher;186495]Here's the quote posted earlier: 4thR, Jan-Feb, 2008, 19-20, Fall Meeting 2007: Report of the Acts Seminar, Dennis E. Smith, Ballot Four-Acts Seminar, "Stephen and the Ethics of Historiography", Shelly Matthews:

It is anachronistic to speak of “Jews” killing “Christians” in the first century of the common era.
Fellows - .91 Red
Associates - .92 Red
Anachronistic = “The representation of something as existing or happening at other than its proper or historical time.”

P. 20, "...the story of Stephen's martyrdom fails on several criteria to qualify as historical....Her paper argued not only that the story is not historical but also that the traditional reading of it as historical has been closely associated with an anti-Judaism agenda in the writing of Christian history."

Gene[/QUOTE]

Gene,

I'm curious about the quotation marks around "Jews" and "Christians."  I would argue that it is anachronistic to use the word Christian to describe followers of Jesus in the first century.  Is that what they were getting at?  This would not rule out some Jews persecuting other Jews for sectarian reasons.

Any insight on how to parse the sentence/vote?

Chuck
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2008 - 10:16AM #58
wms13
Posts: 33
Bob said: If we assume such, and if we continue to postulate that GLuke and Acts have the same author, does that suggest a second century Luke, or at least a later dating?

Yes, I think we are looking at a 2nd century LK. I have enjoyed watching the gradual movement of Fellows to the position expressed by Art in his editorial. The evidence for the movement seems compelling. The early papers were a bit shocking. Now, we seem to accept the ideas of Pervo and Tyson as very reasonable. This is how scholarship moves. Of course, it may move again.

Mike Short
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2008 - 10:26AM #59
GeneStecher
Posts: 556
It is anachronistic to speak of “Jews” killing “Christians” in the first century of the common era.
Fellows - .91 Red
Associates - .92 Red
Anachronistic = “The representation of something as existing or happening at other than its proper or historical time.”

[QUOTE=chuckj;186603]Gene,

I'm curious about the quotation marks around "Jews" and "Christians."  I would argue that it is anachronistic to use the word Christian to describe followers of Jesus in the first century.  Is that what they were getting at?  This would not rule out some Jews persecuting other Jews for sectarian reasons.

Any insight on how to parse the sentence/vote?

Chuck[/QUOTE]

Chuck, there's nothing in the 4thR to answer your question with confidence: I took it to mean "Jews" and "Jesus-Follower Jews."

Gene
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2008 - 10:28AM #60
MisterC
Posts: 1,865
[QUOTE=wms13;186647]Bob said: If we assume such, and if we continue to postulate that GLuke and Acts have the same author, does that suggest a second century Luke, or at least a later dating?

Yes, I think we are looking at a 2nd century LK. I have enjoyed watching the gradual movement of Fellows to the position expressed by Art in his editorial. The evidence for the movement seems compelling. The early papers were a bit shocking. Now, we seem to accept the ideas of Pervo and Tyson as very reasonable. This is how scholarship moves. Of course, it may move again.

Mike Short[/QUOTE]

All the quotes are from "The Date of Acts: A Reconsideration." Joseph Tyson, Forum 5.1, or the votes from his and Pervo's two articles.  If not in quotes, mine.

"The common authorship of Luke and Acts is a cornerstone of critical scholarship that tends to keep the dates of the composition of the two texts together."

Marcion was second century (actually placed in the second quarter of second century by the ANF's.)

"A major factor behind the composition of Acts was the perceived threat posed by Marcion and Marcionite Christianity." Red

"Marcion had a version of this gospel [Luke], the relation of which to canonical Luke is still under debate. FC Baur believed that the Marcionite version was prior to the orthodox, and he spent considerable effort in identifying the anti-Marcionite additions made by the orthodox leaders." 

Contrarily, Harnack agreed with Tertullian and Irenaeus - Marcion had "mutilated" the original.  Knox said that there was a pre-Marcion version that Marcion edited and the orthodox church enlarged. 

"Consideration of a second century date of Acts would necessarily involve a consideration of its connection with the Gospel of Luke and an attempt to untangle the complex textual history of this gospel."

I think Marcion came in toting his canon, which included a gospel similar to Luke (along with, for the first time, the "Paulines" together).When he was discredited, Luke had to be reworked, since it had made its way on stage as the Marcion editing of Matt and Mark, and Acts was created to straighten out the Paulines. This is why we find Acts connected to the "letters" and Luke connected to the gospels.

Anyway, all of this places the Luke we know well into the second century.

Dennis
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook