tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post115896197475623099..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: A Chronological Clue in Acts 9.25Mark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-53404206284573970642010-03-08T20:44:02.843-05:002010-03-08T20:44:02.843-05:00Many thanks, Richard, for drawing my attention to ...Many thanks, Richard, for drawing my attention to that.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-74534087343024611412010-01-02T00:35:08.918-05:002010-01-02T00:35:08.918-05:00Mark,
I expect that you will be looking at Walter...Mark,<br /><br />I expect that you will be looking at Walters' new study on Luke-Acts, recently reviewed <a href="http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7084" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Accorder to the reviews she makes a good case that Luke's style in the 'seams' in the gospel of Luke are different from the style in the 'seams' in Acts. Whether or not we go so far as to question the common authorship of Luke-Acts, this might have some bearing on the value of your appeal to chronological displacements in the gospels. If she is right that the seams in Acts are so different from the seams in Luke, you would not be able to use examples of chronological displacements in Luke to argue for the plausibility of chronological displacements in Acts.<br /><br />Anyway, your observation about "his disciples" is astute. Thanks for blogging about it. I suspect that Paul gained these disciples while working alone in Arabia and that he got into trouble with Aretas there. Luke, who does not want to portray Christians as trouble makers, omits all reference to Paul's time in Arabia and Aretas, and thus must remain silent about the conversion of these disciples.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1160970290584540482006-10-15T23:44:00.000-04:002006-10-15T23:44:00.000-04:00I recently discovered that Donald T. Rowlingson, "...I recently discovered that Donald T. Rowlingson, "The Jerusalem Conference and Jesus' Nazareth Visit: A Study in Pauline Chronology," JBL 71 (1952): 69-74, at 70, made a similar observation about Luke's mentioning of Capernaum in his Rejection at Nazareth account.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1159356348841888542006-09-27T07:25:00.000-04:002006-09-27T07:25:00.000-04:00hi StephenTo clarify: I didn't mean that Acts *eve...hi Stephen<BR/>To clarify: I didn't mean that Acts *ever* should be read without reference to Galatians (it shouldn't), but merely that my reference to what I thought were non-anomalies concerned only the inner logic of Acts. <BR/>IMHO Luke didnt have Gal: he was well able to quote letters when he wanted to, and Ac and Gal seem independent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1159298540601154942006-09-26T15:22:00.000-04:002006-09-26T15:22:00.000-04:00I meant the traditional, face-value reading of the...<I>I meant the traditional, face-value reading of the text of Acts without reference to Galatians.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for your clarification, Christopher.<BR/><BR/>Your comment raises another issue that I've been wondering about: <B>if</B> Luke and his audience was familiar with Galatians, is it nonetheless the appropriate to read Acts without reference to it?<BR/><BR/>In other words, do we have to decide, before we even begin to interpret the text, whether Galatians is part of the original context of Acts shared by Luke and his audience?<BR/><BR/>Just wondering. I don't have an answer.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1159270783693913112006-09-26T07:39:00.000-04:002006-09-26T07:39:00.000-04:00Hi StephenI meant the traditional, face-value read...Hi Stephen<BR/>I meant the traditional, face-value reading of the text of Acts without reference to Galatians.<BR/>Whether the Galatians were north / territorial or south / provincial, they will have come into contact with the Council letter (Ac 16). Hence the council and the letter are the parts of the history that don't need to be rehearsed, being already known to the Galatians. It is the earlier parts that Paul needs to rehearse. Alternatively, Gal dates early; what were Paul's arguments at the very start of Ac 15 if not those found in Gal, which may therefore be of a similar date.<BR/>The (highly hypothetical) sequence makes good sense in terms of logical development: first Jerusalem visit = introductions; second = clarification of missions; third = clarification of more specific points within one of those missions, the Gentile mission.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1159223904849238632006-09-25T18:38:00.000-04:002006-09-25T18:38:00.000-04:00Make that Talbert.Make that Talbert.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1159195412090644382006-09-25T10:43:00.000-04:002006-09-25T10:43:00.000-04:00Christopher Shell wrote: "Of the two tiny textual ...Christopher Shell wrote: "<I>Of the two tiny textual indicators mentioned, neither in my view constitutes an anomaly on the traditional reading.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Which of the seven <A HREF="http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2006/09/options-for-pauls-visit-in-gal-2.html" REL="nofollow">options for Paul's visit in Gal 2</A> surveyed by Cadbury is the traditional reading?Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1159186532262062332006-09-25T08:15:00.000-04:002006-09-25T08:15:00.000-04:00This is the first time I had had a possible Ac 11 ...This is the first time I had had a possible Ac 11 = Gal 1 equation drawn to my attention, which only goes to show that much scholarship is blighted by not laying all the options on the table to begin with: bravo!<BR/><BR/>This Ac 11 = Gal 1 suggestion is founded on the explanatory power of the inconcinnity (always a good move); therefore if (as on my count) the proposed transposition creates more inconcinnities than the original text, then the theory probably disproves itself.<BR/><BR/>Of the two tiny textual indicators mentioned, neither in my view constitutes an anomaly on the traditional reading. (a) Luke is not as precise as he might be on when Paul came to Jerusalem; but he is under no obligation to bring him to Jerusalem at this particular point if he doesn't have to, suggesting that he does have to, nor to give a particularly precise time-indicator. (b) Paul always gathered believers (or 'disciples')quickly wherever he preached, and on this occasion he was preaching from the experience of restored sight, which may have created a stir. In any case, Luke says he stayed in Damascus quite a while before the basket incident.<BR/>Problems created by the transposition include: Disagreement about where Paul went after his first Jerusalem visit (Tarsus or Antioch?); purpose of Paul's famine visit does not square with Gal 1, whereas the issues in Gal 2 will have been perennial.<BR/>Problem of dating famine visit still remains, and Mark's proposal has the advantage of bringing it closer in time to the events of Ac 12. <BR/>I feel the most economical solution could be: either Gal predates Jerusalem council (which may make Rom/2 Cor links harder to explain) or it postdates by some years (hence no mention of the Council letter) and fills in the relevant info unkown to the Galatians regarding the source of Paul's authority: namely the ancient history of pre-council meetings of Paul and the 12, right up until the Antioch incident which occasioned the council (or at least would have been unlikely to occur after it).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1159139099769510972006-09-24T19:04:00.000-04:002006-09-24T19:04:00.000-04:00Interesting stuff. Thanks for the food for though...Interesting stuff. Thanks for the food for thoughtJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11010472396443993553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1159089871819095852006-09-24T05:24:00.000-04:002006-09-24T05:24:00.000-04:00Metzger in his Textual Commentary also has some re...Metzger in his Textual Commentary also has some remarks about 'HIS disciples'.<BR/><BR/>HansAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com