/ Re: A question about Luke\Acts / Topic was > Re: Who put the NT together /
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Date > 28 Aug 1998 /

] textman once wrote: Dear Steph, Lk-Acts was written a half century after Paul died. It was
] written to tell a story; the story of two Christian heroes: Jesus and Paul.  <snipped the rest>
.
>> jay asks: As long as y'all are on the subject, may i ask a question? (opinons requested) Did not
>> Luke write his Gospel account and the Acts of the Apostles as a written record for Paul's "defense"
>> while he was imprisoned in Rome? My info says the Gospel of Luke was written circa. AD 60, and
>> Acts was completed circa AD 63. Luke was a travelling companion of Paul (right?) Opinions
>> requested. God bless, jay
.
> Cfortunato answers: Most put it much later, around 80-90 AD. However, that comes from no other
> evidence beyond the belief that Mark was first, and needed some time to circulate before Luke
> expanded on it. And I've honestly never heard a decent explanation for why Luke fails to mentions
> Paul's death, if it was written so late (Luke could do wonderful things with a death scene - look at
> the Stoning of Stephan. So why would he miss the opportunity of building up Paul even more by
> stirringly recounting his martyrdom?). And if the majority of scholars are wrong, and Mark *wasn't*
> first, all bets are off, and almost *any* proposal is possible. Interestingly, though, I saw your
> contention proposed by a rather liberal scholar, on a (now defunct) email list about the "Historical
> Jesus" that featured Borg, Crossan and L.T. Johnson called "CrossTalk." He seemed to be proposing
> it as though it were a new idea, though.
.
  textman say: Dear Cyber-Saints, do you see the kind of foolishness and stupidity that I have to put up with? Do you see the sheer unadulterated bullshit that gets passed along as 'facts'? Do you still wonder why Protestants accuse Cats of ignorance of the scriptures? THIS is why! These two are filling your heads with CRAP! Lk-Acts was NOT written "as a written record for Paul's 'defense' while he was imprisoned in Rome". Indeed, there is no evidence that Paul ever even made it to Rome, let alone was imprisoned and martyred there. No indeed. Paul expressed the desire to go there, but because he couldn't, he wrote a letter instead. Yet from this stated desire Luke spins a tale of Paul coming to Rome and landing in jail. And how do we know this is so? Because Luke was NOT a "a traveling companion of Paul" and indeed never even met the man. Moreover, Luke tells us why he wrote his account: "it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed" (Lk1:3-4). Is this not clear enough for you?
.
 As to the absurd idea that Lk-Acts was a first century document: this idea is NOT based on any evidence, but rather on the ridiculous notion that everything in the NT *MUST* have been written before the magical mystical year 100CE (or A.D. for the thinking impaired). Now I ask you: Could these words have been written at any time prior to that 'cut off point': "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke 1:1-2). Yes it took time for MANY narratives to be written! The first century was NOT the computer age where a book can be written, published, and distributed to the four corners of the globe in a matter of weeks. No. It took years to write a book, make copies (by hand yet!), and spread them about. In the year 90CE Mark and Peter's gospel was still brand spanking new, and Matthew only just beginning to get around.
.
 As for Mark being the first gospel: this is NOT a 'belief' but a conclusion based on a meticulous and exhaustive examination and comparison of the evidence given to us in the synoptic gospels. Such studies have been going on for many decades now, and although many scholars will not accept the logical conclusions to be drawn from these scholarly exercises, we are confident that the order of the gospels is as follows: Mark -> Matthew -> John -> Lk-Acts. Mt uses Mk. Jn uses Mk and Mt. Lk uses Mk, Mt, and Jn. Therefore, do not be misled into thinking otherwise by "authorities" who are unable to distinguish their anus from a hole in the ground!
.
  As to why "why Luke fails to mentions Paul's death", there is no reason to make a mystery out of this. The reason is plain: Luke had not a clue as to how Paul died. And without some small hint or rumor on which to build a tale, he was reluctant to simply fashion one out of thin air. You see, what happened was that Paul simply vanished round about 62CE. The last we hear of him is that he was preparing to go to Jerusalem (NOT Rome)! My guess is that he never made it. Carrying a bag of gold, as he did, he was an attractive target for robbers or greedy sailors. In other words, he was very probably killed for the money he was bringing to the poor in Judea, and unceremoniously dumped overboard for the sharks to munch on. Not a very glorious fate, I'm afraid. Much better to believe that he was hauled off to Rome in chains and gloriously beheaded. Alas, history is not quite so melodramatic.

/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 11 Aug 1999 /

 Another thing that makes the scriptures difficult to understand is the near necessity of gaining some basic knowledge of the history of the Ancient Near East. Now that covers a lot of territory, and even focusing on one small period [eg. the first Christian century; being roughly c.30CE (the start of Jesus of Nazareth's public ministry) to about 130CE] requires an effort that is impractical, or even impossible, for most Bible readers at the dawn of the third millennium.
.
 Now this last date can also serve to mark the point at which all of the 27 books of the New Testament are finally set to sheets of papyrus (although the ink is still very fresh on a few). This would make the overall age of the composition of the original autographs a period of approximately 80 years (ie. 50CE to 130CE). In the first half of the second century in the life of the early Greek churches, copies of Paul's epistles were collected, edited, rearranged and increased with the addition of the secondary post-pauline epistles and other materials; as also the Gospels were likewise being collected. That left 'Acts of Apostles' as the odd scroll out; which served as a nice buffer when the two previously independent scroll-collections were brought together in codex form ... That happened later on, of course, but even here we can see the basic outlines and shape of the new book that would form the concluding chapter to the story of the Tanakh [ie. the Greek version (LXX) of the Hebrew scriptures; including (as an added bonus) several new Greek books and additions (yours too at no extra charge yet)!].
.
 Now some may wonder why I lay such stress on the importance of the early formation of the Christian Bible. This is not an easy thing to explain. There are various ways of approaching the history of the early Christians. Some books focus on the main heroes and their accomplishments (eg. stories and legends of the saints and martyrs). Some follow the development of theology and doctrine, and/or liturgy or leadership structures, etc, through the information wrung out of the various documents and artifacts that have survived more or less intact from that era. Others focus on the big cities (of the far-flung Roman Empire) that were the main centers of Christian life and faith in the so-called "wild age" of the second century CE. Still others focus on the surrounding cultures and peoples, and bring in sociological and anthropological questions and concerns; so as to further confuse and confound an already chaotic situation.
.
 Of course, many try to impose order on the confusion and reckless abandon of church history by back-dating persons, books, and various developments; with a sense of confidence inspired by an unfortunate feeling of inevitability. One might even say that anachronism is the bane of early church history. Surely no other period in the long history of the People of God sufferers so much from the blatant abuse of the evidence! ...
.
 The Big Dog sayeth: Ggrrrrrr [insert also much gnashing of fangs] ...
.
 Yes, it often seems that history raises more problems than it solves. And this is true largely because history remains more of an intuitive art form, than an exact science (such as chemistry :). The closest thing that biblical studies has to a technical science is textual criticism. Thus, in many ways, all the various branches and side-branches of the biblical sciences depend on textual criticism for their intellectual integrity and scientific dignity.
.
 But even with all this magnificent mass of evidence and copious source-materials, and all of these refined and newly minted rational techniques and methodologies, and all of these clever schemes and flow-charts outlining in pleasing columns and stately rows what "really" happened in the first two centuries of the Common Era (and, of course, why) ... Even So! ... *Most* of what happened in those eventful days will likely forever elude us. This is why history must always be a self-correcting enterprise. Church historians should always be willing and able to look with fresh eyes at all the evidence, and from there dare to boldly break through the authoritative and exceedingly comfortable paradigms to a wider and more adequate vision of the shape of things that were ...
.
P.S.  Homer Simpson after losing a piece of his brain: "Hahaha ... [insert small dramatic pause] ... Why me laugh?"

/ Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 8Aug99 /

 Dear Cyber-Saints, well, it seems that fixing precise dates to the various documents, events, and persons witnessed to in the books of the NT is most certainly *NOT* an exact science! Thus while many are surely confident in (or merely unconcerned about) the 'tried and true traditions' - or in the so called 'assured results' of the biblical sciences - that go into their favorite bibles and study-bibles and commentaries ... it is *nevertheless* an established fact (and basic reality of life) that most of what we know about the context (or setting) of the NT documents is still almost exclusively based only on what we *think* we know about the history of classical times. The sacred books themselves are not of much help to the ticklish matter of chronology; and very foolish indeed is the chronologer who rests easy with the dates assigned to anything in any modern Bible ...
.
 Yes, this is not a thing to make life easy for ministers, teachers, scholars, and students of Scripture; (or for Believers and Readers in general). BUT it is as much a part of the text as the verse numbers and book titles (neither of which should be considered inspired in any way). Thus the serious Reader must always approach the Sacred Text with as much awe in Unknowing as in the Knowing.
.
 So we see that many are at home in the Word, and know well the meaning and value of the Book of Books. And this is very good unto the Lord. And we also see that the (yet still recently discovered) books of the early Gnostic-Christians of Egypt are having considerable influence on the way many people regard the text (and on how they read it). Thus while it is undoubtedly true that many post-modern Gnostic-Christians are foolish beyond measure (see their web-pages for yourself if you trust not the cyberspace-prophet's word), it would still be very irresponsible indeed to simply dismiss the ancient Gnostic books as worthless trash having no bearing or significance on how Believers should read their bibles.
.
 As for myself, I consider the 2C Gnostic literature to be an important part of the biblical secondary literature. Now this is not a theological choice or dogmatic decision; it is merely a methodological necessity (ie. these documents are contemporary witnesses to the effect of the Jesus movement upon a significant minority of those people (in and around Egypt) who came in contact with the rapidly expanding Faith of these alien Christians). They are, therefore, to be placed alongside the early Church fathers, and also the Greek Apologists and NT Apocrypha, as together forming the bulk of the impressive mass of 2C Christian literature that is the chief source of our knowledge regarding the theology and history of those very exciting days in the lives of the new & passionate People of God.
.
 Let me explain something more about this -> All of the secondary apparatus that is built into the Book these days is newly minted and foreign to the text; just as are all the footnotes, commentaries, essays, and other materials that deal with biblical matters. In both cases Readers largely take all this for granted. Many go even so far as to consider this or that version particularly inspired and/or revealed; or just vastly superior to any other version or edition. But the great value of all of these fine translations and helpful accretions seems to me to be very highly suspect ...
.
 It's like the way that the Cats place Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture side-by-side such that "the Church" has at hand a dual channel of revelation: one holding all the previous deposit of the faith, and one encompassing the ongoing revelation within the Church and her living traditions. By placing them on a par, the Church affirms both equally, such that they mutually support and correct each other to the benefit of both, and to the greater glory of the Church ...
.
 At least that's the general idea. In practice, however, things don't work out quite so neatly. The problem is basically that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make her drink it. Consider how this applies to Scripture: Any literate person can pick up a hardcopy edition of the Book (or tune in their monitor to the right frequency :) and start reading the words that fall to the eyes. Oh yes. That's the easy part. But finding the cool and soothing Waters of Spiritual Life ... the Living & Liberating Word of Grace & Truth ... the blinding brilliance of the Eternal Logos ...  That's the hard part. Oh yes!
.
 None should ever think that they "know" the Bible. There are no keys or codes that make it all simple for you. Just as there are no infallible guides to its many hidden treasures; other than the Spirit of Truth (aka the Encourager), that is. None should ever think that there is no mystery left thereunto, or that those silly ancient scrolls have long since given up every secret they could ever have had; oh no, perish the thought. None should ever think that they have mastered the Bible, and are experts qualified to speak with authority of all the things that lie in those pages, those records, those testimonies of a long and bygone age.
.
 "Oh," they say, "the prophet John was talking about ancient Rome and Caesar, and that's what *those* passages mean!" Thus do the Keepers and Guardians of the Text protect the Faith by removing all meaning and relevance and value and power out of the Word; so as to make of it a dead and safe and very comfortable thing suitable unto the nicely ignorant People of God. Thus is grace and salvation dispensed unto the World. And everyone is perfectly happy with all this?!
.
 Well, I have news for you. The Lord is not at all happy with any of this! Yes, Revelation and Providence are ongoing realities in the faith-life of the People of God. It has been this way in every previous generation back to Moses and Abraham and Adam. But if "Inspiration" is to have any meaning and power it must be confined in a special way to the accepted books of the early Church Councils. In the same way, the Word of God also cannot be spread hither and yon to include councils and their creeds and decrees, and the various confessions of the various churches, and papal bulls, and Summaries of Theology, and catechisms, etc etc. Any attempt to place equal authority on anything beyond the bare and raw Text is to do a grave violence to this unique and unsurpassable manifestation of the Word of God.
.
 Now it's certainly true that basically the Book is only a key that opens doors to greater things (ie. divine and spiritual realities); but it is also a living and powerful spiritual force in and of itself. It is not a "fixed" and static entity (though many do think it so). And none can properly read the sacred text (let alone understand it) without being acutely aware that the Mystery and Power of it will always elude us; that it's Wisdom and Light will forever outshine us; that its Truth and Life are constantly hidden from the unworthy, and hurries away from the ungodly, and refuses to hold still long enough for us to pin it down and say, "Oh, it's this verse!" or "Oh no, it's *that* verse!"
.
 The thing about the Bible is that hardened-hearts (as also the double-minded) will never truly "know" it. Not even if they read it twice each day for a thousand years. Therefore you touch the Holy Book with profane and unworthy eyes at your mortal peril! ...  Yes, the Sword of the Word is a dual-edged blade that cuts very sharp, and also cuts very deep ...
.
 Fear and trembling (along with a contrite heart) are the only keys that will allow you to slip through the foggy darkness of nineteen centuries of prejudice and ignorance and apathy and politics and war that stand between us and the Holy Ones of the early Greek churches. To hear their chorus of voices in harmony with the Word ... as God speaking directly to us (even here and now; even in our sin and darkness and ignorance) requires a heart hungry for love, and ears willing to hear a word that burns ...

/ Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 9Aug99 /

 Speaking of chronology ... It seems that the prophet is having some problems with his own chronology regarding the dating of certain NT books. Thus many scholars assert with some good measure of confidence that the first epistle of Clement of Rome was penned round about 96CE. They also say that "Clement refers to the Gospels, to Epistles of Paul, to the teaching of the Epistle of James ..." (S.Neill, 'The Interpretation of the New Testament:1861-1961', p.54). The problem is that my chronology places the book of James at c.120CE, or so. So obviously something is very wrong here. I see three possibilities:
.
 (1) James is an early 1C document; which means that I'm completely off base in my reading of James, and canonical history in general.   (2) The evidence within the text of 1Clement is wrong (ie. misread or mishandled), and needs to be placed in the 2C (say 4X, 115-25CE?).   (3) The reference(s) to James is somehow in error (4X, perhaps it is a reference to one of Jacob's sources?).
.
 All three of these possibilities are 'live' options, as they say; although I don't much care for the first, and am in no position to establish the second (beyond all reasonable doubt) by means of a long and tedious dissertation containing myriads of quotes and references to various ancient authorities, etc. SO ... that only leaves us the last and final option as our best initial approach. Perhaps the problem is in the epistle itself? Or perhaps the problem is with the sad and sorry traditions, confused interpretations, and slip-shod commentaries surrounding the epistle?
.
 Let us therefore turn our collective attention toward the relevant evidence as given by this Apostolic Father named Clement in the 'lost' and recklessly abused text of an apostolic and sacred epistle (originally in Greek), and  later to be very badly entitled as: 'The Letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, Commonly Called Clement's First Letter'  ->
.
 "It is to the humble that Christ belongs, not to those who exalt themselves above his flock. The scepter of God's majesty, the Lord Jesus Christ, did not come with the pomp of pride and arrogance; though he could have done so. But he came in humility just as the Holy Spirit said of him. For Scripture reads: Lord, who has believed what we heard? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? Before him we announced that he was like a child, like a root in thirsty ground. He has no comeliness or glory. We saw him, and he had neither comeliness nor beauty. But his appearance was ignominious, deficient when compared to man's stature. He was a man marred by stripes and toil, and experienced in enduring weakness. Because his face was turned away, he was dishonored and disregarded. He it is who bears our sins and suffers pain for us. And we regarded him as subject to toil and stripes and affliction. But it was for our sins that he was wounded and for our transgressions that he suffered. To bring us peace he was punished: by his stripes we were healed. Like sheep we have all gone astray: each one went astray in his own way. And the Lord delivered him up for our sins; and he does not open his mouth because he is abused. Like a sheep he is led off to be slaughtered; and just as a lamb before its shearers is dumb, so he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation his condemnation ended. Who shall tell about his posterity? For his life was taken away from the earth. Because of the transgressions of my people he came to his death. And I will give the wicked as an offering for his burial and the rich for his death. For he did no iniquity and no deceit was found in his mouth. And the Lord's will is to cleanse him of his stripes. If you make an offering for sin, your soul will see a long-lived posterity. And the Lord's will is to do away with the toil of his soul, to show him light and to form him with understanding, to justify an upright man who serves many well. And he himself will bear their sins. For this reason he shall have many heirs and he shall share the spoils of the strong, because his life was delivered up to death and he was reckoned among transgressors. And he it was who bore the sins of many and was delivered up because of their sins." 1Clem16:1-14
.
 hmmmmm ... that's very odd ... I wasn't really expecting something quite like that ... Were you? ...
.
 Well, maybe now would be a good time for all of us to just 'take a moment' ...

textman
*