|
06-16-2008, 11:39 PM | #1 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
A Question regarding Acts
Some of the research I've been studying makes Acts, which is not too bad to read in Greek, to be a later composition because it downplays the conflicts between Peter and Paul, but instead tries to paint a unified position of the apostles.
This aside got me thinking, that such a position is almost identical to the position which the LDS Church takes with regard to its internal dissent. Some of the Pauline letters highlight the conflicts between Peter and Paul and they seem to support the more confrontational real world that existed during the first century. Thoughts?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
06-17-2008, 01:47 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto
Posts: 3,085
|
Quote:
*mullahs may now go bezerk* In that sense, Luke is a redactor, and one with some strong themes he wants to empasize: 1. History has profound theological moments 2. Christianity is legitimate, ethical, and international 3. The Acts of the Apostles are really the acts of Jesus and the Holy Spirit In that sense, I think it's fair to suspect that Luke and Acts were "vetted" (to use the fashionable buzzword) in a way that, say, Paul's letter to the Galatians was not. There are strong arguments that Galatians, for instance, is much older than Luke and Acts. I remember that there's a fairly wide range for dating Luke and Acts, anywhere from 70 (which seems too early to me) to as late as 100 or so.
__________________
"Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies. |
|
06-17-2008, 02:34 PM | #3 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Unlike our superstar AA, I'm just now close to finishing John for the first time. But I find Luke reasonably easy to read, Acts has a nice flow, and some of Paul's letters seem to have a weird flow. He has lots of redundancies when he wrote. John and Acts tend to have a nice flow. Philemon, one of the shorter works is actually considered authentic. Hebrews has almost always been considered non-authentic, yet it made it into canon, why?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
06-17-2008, 03:01 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto
Posts: 3,085
|
Quote:
Origen thought Luke might have written it, but his famous statement that "God knows" is probably accurate. Paul definitely didn't write it. If you want to tie an ill-informed Mormon in knots with the NT, Hebrews is one of the best places to go. It's a commentary on why we don't need prophets anymore, has a teaching on angels that doesn't square with Mormonism (at least not in my understanding), tells its readers (and listeners, of course--this one feels like a sermon, and not a letter) why the Levitical priesthood has been replaced by Christ, why Jesus is our High Priest so we don't need an earthly High Priest any more, it just keeps going and going... I believe Hebrews was valuable because it helped make sense of priesthood, the Jewish temple, and Christ. It quotes the LXX at length, and that probably didn't hurt it's cannonization either.
__________________
"Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies. Last edited by Sleeping in EQ; 06-17-2008 at 03:12 PM. |
|
06-17-2008, 03:05 PM | #5 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
I finished John 17 a few days ago, and after reading that, I find it difficult for any person to accept the modern constellation of the Trinity, but I suppose that's neither here nor there. Pelagius on Hebrews. http://ss.diether.org/?p=41#more-41
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 06-17-2008 at 03:15 PM. |
|
06-17-2008, 08:49 PM | #6 |
I must not tell lies
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
|
|
06-17-2008, 08:51 PM | #7 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
We all know what a diligent, biblical studies man, BRM was. Tradition has held that Acts was a vetting by Luke, but scholarship accepts it to some degree because we just don't know.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 06-17-2008 at 08:54 PM. |
06-17-2008, 09:07 PM | #8 | |
I must not tell lies
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
|
Quote:
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. Acts 1:1: The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Joseph Smith: The book called the Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke, and may be considered as a continuation of his Gospel. (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, 1:375). |
|
06-18-2008, 12:15 AM | #9 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
And again, it might be Luke. I'll try to dig into the linguistic comparisons to determine what others believe. Here's one work discussing it. http://books.google.com/books?id=9Dt...esult#PPA54,M1 A competent evangelical scholar weighs in. Witherington. http://books.google.com/books?id=2P7...ad=1_1#PPR8,M1
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 06-18-2008 at 12:24 AM. |
|
06-18-2008, 01:59 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto
Posts: 3,085
|
Quote:
I'm not putting the authorship of Acts to the question. I think Luke did write (and readact and so on) Acts, and probably with an approach similar to what he did with his gospel.
__________________
"Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|