Studies of the NT

by Balsam 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  The real issue is not what Luke believes or what kind of words he has or has not used, but what Jesus actually said

  hmike...Luke has taken Matt and Mark and reformulated it according to his personal christology. He even seems to be specifically refuting Matt in his introduction where he tells his christian audience Theophilus that he needed to hear a corrected 'truthful' version of the Jesus story. He never 'quotes' anyone, he is using the other versions and tweaking them. The author of Acts (same person as edited Luke?) likewise never 'quotes' Jesus nor even pretends to. The book is an artificial reconstruction of Christain origins designed to unite the very different cults of Christ and Jesus of the 2nd century. The whole search for the "historical jesus" is becoming more futile as we understand the literary nature of these books.
• 

  hmike

  Hi Pete,

  I understand your POV, but let me ask: T he book of Acts has several testimonies about Jesus in Chs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 26; some from Peter, some from Paul. Each one is different. If someone was "manufacturing" history to make a point, why would they do it that way? Why not be more consistent? In fact, why have so many testimonies at all?

  Also, we don't know if Luke had a copy of Matthew to refer to. He may have had Mark's and wanted to expand it, and perhaps had other written accounts and oral testimonies for reference, but he may have also wanted to counter some erroneous accounts in circulation.
• 

  peacefulpete

  hmike, I'm convinced that Luke knew Matt as a result of reading and analysing literature on Q, pro and con. Here are two verses that betray Luke's use of Matt that cannot be attribited to the elusive Q sayings:

  Matthew 26:68 // Luke 22:64, which both have
  "tis estin ho paisas se;" ("Who is it that struck you?") after
  "Propheteuson." These words are not in the Markan parallel, which has
  only "Prophesy!"
  
  Matthew 1:21 has: "kai kaleseis to onoma autou
  Iesoun." Luke 1:31 has, "kai kaleseis to onoma autou Iesoun." I would
  say that six identical Greek words is a strong sign of awareness.

  As for Acts, the author drew from a number of sources, some famous like Homer, others that apparently circulated as oral or written tradition that are now lost. The "we" section is a great example of one such source standing out. I'm not sure what you were telling me about the testimonies, the author natuarally included 'speeches' from the disparate sect founders/icons to make his attempt at uniting them. I also should qualify what i meant by "artificial" history. I am not suggesting that Acts has absolutly no historical kernals. Likely the stories have some touches of reality amidst the legend. (like the way even in this white washed version Paul ultimately does not join with the Jerusalem sect but is declared to have his own private mission to Gentiles) The basic storyline is concocted and impossible to harmonize with either Pauline material, early Patristic writing or the Gospels (including Luke).
• 

  peacefulpete

  BTW Balsam please do share anything that you learn. It's nice to have someone to bounce my 'radical' ideas off. Leolaia and Narkissos have fathered a monster.
• 

  hmike

  Thanks for the reply, Pete. There are old issues here which may never be settled. I'm all for scholarship to clarify truth, and I respect the scholars here like yourself. I only wish to caution people against making conclusions from a small amount of data. When information is lacking, there are multiple ways to interpret what it can mean. It can be like taking 10 pieces out of a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle box, and without having seen the picture, trying to determine what the picture is from just the 10 pieces. My impression is that some people are primarily guided to conclusions based on their bad experiences with religious organizations like the JW.
• 

  Narkissos

  I only wish to caution people against making conclusions from a small amount of data. When information is lacking, there are multiple ways to interpret what it can mean. It can be like taking 10 pieces out of a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle box, and without having seen the picture, trying to determine what the picture is from just the 10 pieces.

  Actually the "10 pieces" (the NT canon) have been selected and arranged so as to suggest a definite picture (the official history of the Church as told by any catechism, and mainly based on Acts). However, in the past 150 years or so dozens of other pieces have been found that do not fit into the traditional picture. We have to unlearn this picture if we want to make sense of them.
• 

  peacefulpete

  hmike, I respect your appeal to caution. It is very true that our puzzle is incomplete and it is also true that human tendency, for better or worse, is to fill in the blanks with our mind. I do sometimes express myself with brevity that comes across as certainty. What I am certain of is that Acts is not an accurate reconstruction of early Christianity.

  Narkisssos, hey Dad.
• 

  Narkissos

  Hey son... erm... wait a minute, you're about twice my age on JWD!
• 

  Balsam

  Hi Everyone, PeacefulPete, Hmike, glad to see the interest here in this. Sometimes I think I am headed off thinking about this all on my own. The point is Jesus never wrote down a single word. Everything that is written about Jesus is what is written by his followers long after he died? I can't help but wonder why that is. "The Gospel of Thomas" is suppose to just Jesus sayings and Elaine Pagels feels it is probably the earliest of all the Gospel writings.

  Having this information and the history of the religions that were going on at the time helps a great deal in understanding how the stories of Jesus were developed. I have been following the lectures by Amy Levine by the "Teachings Company" of the OT biblical studies. It is interesting the added thoughts scholars bring out that your common churching going follower never hear. I love delving into these religious thoughts. What amazed me too is how the God of the Israelites had many of the same qualities of the ancient Egyptians, Persians, Babylonia though they brought believe down to one God. Then comes Jesus during a period when the Jew's were possibly waiting a messiah who who deliver them from control of the nations around them like Rome. It was a rebellious time, because of the hatred of the Roman occupation of Jerusalem. I highly recommended the Teaching Company lectures series on biblical studies. Much cheaper than attending college.

  Balsam
• 

  peacefulpete

  This thread is relevant to recent discussions regarding the ransom theory.