Acts Historical through Herod Agrippa II?

[neilgodfrey]

I see. One who has invested years in a method and theory is not likely to turn around at this stage and radically critique it.

[Adam]

What do you think my Horizontal Synoptic Solution was? It was quite a rethinking. Here's the thread if you don't think it pushed the envelope on rethinking my Thesis. It's just not so readily illustrative of the seven written eyewitness sources and not at all subject to quick summarizing. I started the thread late last year and have entered nothing since May of this year when I added on my idea that John 21 was the original ending of the Grundschrift underlying Mark 16.

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... ?f=3&t=222

[neilgodfrey]

I did peruse your thesis outline as linked from here. Yes, it's all very reasonable stuff given the assumptions and methods of New Testament scholarship. It's just that none of those methods would be recognized as sound in the work of "straight historians". The reason NT studies has its own unique methods of research and does not cohere with those of "straight historians" is simple. NT studies takes for granted the broad Christian narrative and works within that framework. This allows for a host of variant theories such as yours. But it's not the way "straight history" is done. It's not history. It's just another reworking of theological presumptions.

[Blood]

James R. Edwards in 2009 wrote The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition. He makes his case on pages 184-186 that the Semitisms in Luke 1 and 2 are most likely Hebraisms. In any case his detailed Appendix II on pages 294 to 332 present very detailed Semitisms in Luke (none in 1:1-4!), largely in L or Special Luke. Virtually every verse in chapters 1 and 2 contains one or more Semitisms.

Again, I'd like just one example to support the idea that Luke 1-2 "go back to Hebrew."

If you have the book, you should be able to provide one.

[Charles Wilson]

Hello everyone-
Been away for a few days.
Coupla' comments:

1. On the view that the thread has already been hijacked, the discussion of the geographical accuracy of Mark was argued in a previous thread. One important way of looking at Mark is to see it as a Literary creation for Symbolic Narrative. Mark was as accurate as he needed to be. The Swine of Gadara is a Joke on the Herodians and Romans. To argue otherwise tends to point to Christian Bias and inerrancy issues. We wouldn't want THAT would we?

2. Agrippa 2 is certainly in Acts but that does not bring reason to see Acts as ***Historical***. It merely suggests that he was a Prop for the main Story, the Main Story being Titus, Mucianus and the Legions after the Destruction of Jerusalem. Bernice also has a lot to do in Acts but this points to actions with Titus rather than with Agrippa or Polemon, for that fact. Does SHE make Acts Historical? See "The Queen's Eunuch" for Polemon's man Anicetus (Polemon was married to Bernice. Bernice later worked with Titus.) Titus sailed with Agrippa on 2 ships before returning to Judaea. In Acts we find an odd name with a character who is taken with "Priscilla" and "Aquilla". "Eagle" is an odd name for a female, yes? Not for a boat. You can find Agrippa in other places in Acts but, again, it is for effect.

3. Agrippa is in Acts. So, What?

CW

[Adam]

Yes, Charles, regarding your #1 above the thread has gotten away from my OP, but the joker here is that you by your #2 and #3 seem not to have read the OP. My OP asks whether it is true that Josephus got all kinds of historical information from Herod Agrippa II that he had gotten from Luke who had been in his court in prior decades c. 60 A. D. (or that Luke and Josephus had drawn from the same source at his court. So far no one has denied Josephus's tie to Marcus Junius Agrippa, so I am comforted in my Thesis that Luke-Acts was early and contained three of my seven written eyewitness records of Jesus.

[Adam]

Again, I'd like just one example to support the idea that Luke 1-2 "go back to Hebrew."
If you have the book, you should be able to provide one.

Edwards writes: "These Hebraisms include: (p. 184)
"1. The adding of the infinitive of a word to the same word in its finite verb form....
2. use of 'en too' plus the infinitive [Luke 2:6, 43]...
3. The use of 'prosoopon' [1:76, 2:31]...
4. The ubiquitous initial 'kai egeneto' [1:5 etc. etc.]...
5. The use of 'ei' as a negative....
7. The use of apoodotic 'kai' to connect main clauses of sentences to preceding subordinate clauses [2:21, 27]...
9. The use of 'anth oon' occurring only once in NT outside Special Luke' " (p. 185)

[Blood]

Let's look at some of these ...

3. πρόσωπόν (prosopon, "face")
Strong's: from Homer down; the Sept. hundreds of times for פָּנִים, also for אַפַיִם, etc.

So this "Hebraism" was commonly attested in Greek "from Homer down," and was used hundreds of times in the LXX.

[Blood]

4. ἐγένετο kai egeneto (commonly translated "and it came to pass")

ἐγένετο appears 325 times in the Greek manuscript record ... Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle. In what possible sense is this a "Semitism"?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/sea ... eek&page=7

[Blood]

9. The use of 'anth oon' occurring only once in NT outside Special Luke' " (p. 185)

"Anth Oon"? What word is that? Verse?