From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Luke-Acts and further ramblings (The Historical Jesus IV: Luke)
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:58:48 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Keywords: historical jesus, creation/evolution debate, gospel of Luke

rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:

>My thanks to Mr. Adams for his response to my post.
You're welcome....I'm not going to adress every issue, so if I fail to
respond to some that you happen to think are important, please point them
out...

>These findings will not go away, and Christians will have to deal with them.
Yep...that's why I didn't ignore the postings.  Although I dispute some of
your datings, I realize that there *are* valid questions about datings.

>Secondly, I have been questioned by a correspondent as to my claim
>concerning the *authority* of the NT.  Well, I *do* think these arguments
>affect the *authority* of the NT.
Of course they would, and thus present major problems.  But, alas, they are
only theories and scolarly opinoins.  There are differeing opinions, and 
until we uncover new evidence to support or deny either theory, they remain
theories.  Unfortunately, it is unlikely that we will discover much new
information.

>Firstly, consider the great effort 
>of the early Church Fathers to attribute authorship of the various books
>in the Bible to the twelve apostles.  Why did they *do* this?  To enhance
>the authority of the writings, of course!  By definition modern
>research has reduced the authority of the NT.  The actual documents passed
>through numerous anonymous hands over decades before being finally compiled
>into their final forms by yet other anonymous hands, with lots of changes
>and additions along the way.
In today's Christian community, there does not seem to be a need for
Apostolic Authorship to make the Bible authoritive.  The early Church
needed this relationship, as you point out.  Additionally, it was quite
common for followers/students of writers to write documents in the style of
their mentors and attribute the document to the mentor.

>	Secondly, consider the great effort that has gone into attempts
>to "harmonize" the four gospels with one another (I am especially thinking
>of St. Augustine in this context).  As Gabel and Wheeler say in _The Bible
>as Literature_, 1986, p185:
>	...Even today, the existence of gospel "harmonies," ... shows
>	the deeply felt need to bring the four gospels within a single
>	overall structure.  The result is paradoxical, because what 
>	gospel harmonies unintentionally demonstrate is gospel disharmony.
>	The four works are fundamentally different in content, arrangement,
>	emphasis, and purpose;...
>With the advent of the various source theories, this effort at harmonization
>that has been going on for 1500 years has been dealt a mortal wound that it
>can never recover from.
Of course the Gospels are different in content, arrangement, emphesis.
That is because they had different purposes.  I'll address that issue here,
instead of using the other posts about the Gospels.

Matthew : wanted to prove to Jews that Jesus was the Messiah;
Mark    : writing to citizens of Rome, to bring the Gospel to them;
Luke    : written to strengthen faith of believers, and defend against
          attacks of unbelievers, and to show the place of Gentiles in
          the early Church;
John    : written apparantly to Greeks, possibly to adress some heresy,
          but most certainly as an evangelistic work

These different purposes would lead to different styles, and inclusion of
different material to emphesize a particular motif.  As such, it is
entirely understandable that they differ.

>There is no way to construct a 'Life of Jesus' or even be sure of what
>statements are really his, and which are the author's.  The more we try to
>discover who the real Jesus was, the farther he recedes into the past behind
>the mist of legend.
Since none of the existing documents were written contemporaneously with
Jesus's ministry (on this, we certainly agree) it would be difficult to
'prove' which statements were His.  Since the original source documents
('Q', for example) are not extant, this is information that can be open to
question.  In this case, since there is no particular proof AGAINST any of
the sayings, I'll take them as given in the Bible.

>There will always be contradictions and inconsistencies between the various
>NT books.  There is no way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.  
This would be true of any selcetion of comments/histories based on
eyewitness and second-hand accounts.  Look at the variety of stories
obtained from interviewing eyewitnesses to traffic accidents.  Different
people focus on different aspects, and thus report 'different' histories.

>...It requires a mind shift that regards
>the books with a little less awe and a little more critical attitude,
>a little more cross-checking before you use a quote in a debate, a little
>more consideration of the Book as a collection of individual writings, and
>a little less as a monolithic structure, and *hopefully*, just a little
>less as an authority, and, just *maybe*, with a little more toleration
>of differing views, even that of (God forbid)  -- Atheists.
Take a look at my posts, you'll find exactly this kind of thread...I'm
often critcized by other Christians for being too tolerant, and having a
theology that is too wide open....

>Mr. Adams argues that
>	1) Luke himself states that he is not an eyewitness to the
>life of Jesus, so why did I have to *prove* it?
>	2) That Luke/Acts was written much earlier than any of my sources
>indicate (they agree on about A.D. 90).  Mr. Adams postulates ~67 A.D.
>	3) That Luke/Acts is probably written by a travel companion of Paul.

>Mr. Adams is perfectly correct about 1); I included him of course for 
>completeness - after all, he is one of the Big Four.  Clearly my post needs
>to emphasize this more; I think I will just replace IV with an edited version
>of this letter if it meets with his approval.
Thanx for acknowledging this...this was the particular item that led me to
respond to the criticism of Luke as opposed to the others.

>Mr. Adams's arguments for an early date for Luke/Acts are primarily from
>omission, namely that
>	a) Paul's death is not mentioned (AD 62).
>	b) The destruction of the temple is not mentioned (AD 70).
>	c) Burning of Rome is not mentioned (AD 64).
>	d) Persecution of Christians in not mentioned.
>and also that Luke states that he has spoken (1:1-4) with eyewitnesses.

>1)  First let us examine references to historical events, as listed above.
>a) appears to be incorrect: 
>[4](204) says:
>	Although it has been proposed that Acts ends inconclusively because
>	it was written before Paul's trial was over, it is more likely that
>	it ends as it does because the Gospel has by Acts 28 achieved the
>	goal of being freely proclaimed in Rome, the capital of the Gentile 
>	world.  The author of Acts does not leave us in any uncertainty as
>	to the ultimate fate of Paul, however; the touching story of Paul's
>	farewell to the elders from the church at Ephesus (20:17-38) makes
>	it clear that Paul is to die for his testimony to the faith.
This is the alternative theory proposed in the NIV notes for a later date.
I reject it because it requires searching for oblique references that
appear to support it.  As for your reference to Acts 20:17-38, I Timothy
1:3 relates something not mentioned in Acts, and apparantly follows the
action in Acts 28.  This would mean then that Paul did actually revist
Epesus.

>b)  The destruction of the Temple of Jeruselam is also mentioned:
>In Luke, [2](153) cites verses 21:20 (which is copied from Mark), verse
>24, and 19:43-44 as "a clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem which
>has already occurred."
I disagree.  The verbs are all future tense, so any reading other than the
literal one is purely speculation.  These are most ceratinly not clear
references.

>I can find no reference to c), so I will pass over this one.
:-)

>d)  I know that there are passages in I think Acts that refer to persecution,
>specifically "sending sheep out to the wolves," but I am too tired to
>look for them.  (or is this in Matthew?)
Matthew 10:16.  But this certainly refers to Jesus sending out the
disciples and warning them of persecution.  This is a prophesy of Christ,
not a report of past activity.  How can you take a prophesy and use it as a
quote to say that it has already happened?  Only by having a bias towards
the Gospels being doctored to reflect history can you reach this
conclusion.  [OPINION: I think your sources are biased in this direction.]

>2)  There are whole pages in most of my references enumerating the differences
>in the teaching of Paul as presented in Acts versus how Paul himself
>presents them in his Epistles.  Here is a sampling:

>[1](128)
>	...More significant is the contrast between Paul's understanding of 
>	his apostleship and the way it is presented in Acts.  Paul
>	emphatically insists that he is an apostle by a direct commission
>	from the risen Lord,...In Acts, Paul is never called an apostle
>	except at Acts 14:4,14,...[which] probably means envoys commissioned
>	by the Antioch community, not apostles of Jesus Christ.
And?  The author of Acts simply reported information he had at hand and
from eyewitnesses.  Just because he fails to call Paul an Apostle does not
reflect at all on Paul's claim.  You can't prove this by the absence of the
appelation.

>[2](158)
>	...Acts knows no difference between the doctrine of Peter and that
>	of Paul; not a word is mentioned concerning the sharp conflict 
>	which occurred between the two in Antioch (Gal. 2:11-21). ....
That's true, though it does report it in a way that glosses over the
differences.  Paul is summoned to Jerusalem to be confronted by James and
Peter.  The author of Acts plays down the differences between the two.
Given the reason for acts (to report the actions of the early church) such
a style is perfectly understandable.  Play up harmony and downplay
disention.

>	...The portrayal of the ministry of Paul gives no indication
>	of how he had to struggle for the freedom of the gospel from the law.
Sure it does, read Acts 15:1-29.  Although it doesn't convey the probable
animosity between the two groups (Jerusalem vs Paul) it does record their
differences.  Also, Acts 21:17 et seq. contains more examples.

>	...In the remaining chapters which deal with the message and
>	ministry of Paul, there is no discernible awareness either of
>	Pauline theology or of the letters of the apostle.  The author
>	obviously did not know Paul's writings and had only rather
>	general ideas of his teaching. ...
Which can be explained by the earlier date!  If the author of Acts is
writing it during Paul's continuing ministry, it is likely that he would
not have had access to all of Paul's letters, and thus relied on reports of
Paul's teachings.

>	...one must also decide in the case of Acts that an author who 
>	possessed such a minimal awareness of Pauline theology could not
>	have been the traveling companion of the apostle.
>[3](169)
>	...From all these facts -- and they could easily be multiplied -- 
>	it is quite clear that the author of Acts could not possibly
>	have been a companion of Paul, and also that he has no clear idea
>	of the apostle's aims.

This is a valid question...but Acts does not appear to be real heavy on
theology in general.  It is more of a newspaper report type of document,
reporting things that happened, without attaching lots of theological ties.
As such, and if I have correctly discenred the intent of the author, this
does not present a problem.  Of course, I'm an amateur here...

>3) Factual differences in Paul's itinerary between Acts and Paul's letters.
>There is no point in my enumerating them; [1] has an entire chapter devoted
>to a chronology of Paul's journeys.  It suffices to say that they are
>numerous.
This, in and of itself, does not present any particular theological problems,
and although I will not try to explain it away, does not impact on the
teachings of the books.

>4)  As to the statement in Luke 1:1-4 that he has spoken to eyewitnesses,
>this is by no means conclusive; as [1](119) says:
>	...Whether the eyewitnesses form a group distinct from the 
>	'ministers of the word' is not clear.  If they are distinct, Luke
>	stands in a tradition twice removed from the original events
>	of Jesus -- the eyewitnesses, the ministers (e.g. Mark), and Luke.
>	Luke is definitely a sub-apostolic work.
No objections.  You and I agree that Luke was not a Gospel written by an
eyewitness.

>and [5](105) is quite emphatic about Luke being 'twice removed from 
>the original events':
>	...Moreover, Luke is concerned to retain the difference between
>	those historical eyewitnesses, and those who came later.  Luke
>	makes no claim to have an independent access to the events which would 
>	rival that of the eyewitnesses.  Rather, he has received the tradition
>	through the 'ministers of the word', which he now attempts to 
>	set down in writing.
Fine....this isn't a particular problem in my eyes...have I missed
something???

Thanx for listening...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic