Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4208
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat May 07, 2016 5:59 am

I would like to get some input here. I am interested in looking at indications of internal tension between the gospel of Luke on the one hand and the Acts on the other, spots where the two works appear to disagree on something. The ultimate goal is to evaluate issues of authorship (whether the same individual penned every passage of both works, or whether the same individual collected materials for both works, or whether different individuals penned each work and they were joined by their prefaces artificially at a later date, or anything in between), but the data to be collected ought to be initially free of such considerations.

The most famous instance of a disagreement between Luke and Acts may be the ascension: in Luke it appears to occur on the same day as the resurrection, whereas in Acts it famously occurs 40 days after the resurrection.

What other examples are there?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4208
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat May 07, 2016 6:03 am

I will start with the treatment of independent exorcists.

Luke 9.49-50 (confer Mark 9.38-40):

49 John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”

Acts 19.13-17:

13 But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, “I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 Seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said to them, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” 16 And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 This became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified.

Casting out demons in Jesus' name produces very different results here.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2117
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by DCHindley » Sat May 07, 2016 7:18 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:I will start with the treatment of independent exorcists.

Luke 9.49-50 (confer Mark 9.38-40):

49 John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”

Acts 19.13-17:

13 But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, “I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 Seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said to them, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” 16 And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 This became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified.

Casting out demons in Jesus' name produces very different results here.
Magic (as in belief that men could control demons who in turn control physical phenomenon, by means of incantations and rites) has always carried the risk of failing to achieve ones' goal. Usually this is perceived as some sort of failed attempt at the proper rituals. Magicians took very great pains to create amulets and such to pre-plant around town, usually buried, that could be called upon as needed at the moment.

I guess the author of Acts was assuming that these sons of Sceva (all seven at once?) must not have used the correct incantations or utilized improper ritual objects (the incantation is not given). That will teach them (which ties in with Luke, as Jesus did not forbid them, knowing that their attempts will fail - only Jesus has absolute authority, he's "connected" to the "big kahuna" IAO, so to speak, and does not need to use incantations/rituals).

But that is why all those ritual objects are buried around, so if the demon will not obey you, you find the object that summons the disobedient demon's superior demon, and command the superior demon to command his subordinate demon to comply with the magician's command. The appropriate incantations/rituals may well work, if only by chance, on the superior demon, You never know with them demons ... It does not appear that the sons of Sceva expected such a violent reaction by the demon in the man, as running away with their clothes torn off would have made attempting another incantation difficult, so they were clearly unprepared and mere amateurs.

And what the heck are seven "chief priest's" sons doing in Ephesus. Are we speaking of a shaman or pagan priest here? I wonder if the "chief priest" was not a Magian priest, and thus representative of Magi in general, popularly considered to be the highest authorities in such matters as demon commanding. The author of Acts is not phased, but amused, that they didn't know the proper incantations/rituals for such a demon. Everyone (= the author of Acts) knows that Judean "magicians" like Jesus would kick Magian priest ass, as the author of Luke describes Jesus' almost effortless abilities to command demons and by implication control the elements (sorry no alchemy here, the ancients only recognized four or five elements (air, fire, water, earth and on a good day ether).

This really only suggests that the two accounts do not have to be considered inconsistent with one another. Still, I'm not ready to equate the author of Luke with the author of Acts. If I remember correctly, there are differences in vocabulary (IIRC, the vocabulary of the author of Acts more closely resembles that of the gospel of John than the gospel of Luke, but I haven't located the article I thought I had read on the subject).

/Rambling

DCH

Charles Wilson
Posts: 908
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by Charles Wilson » Sat May 07, 2016 8:08 am

Ben and DCH--

I'm always the Minority Report but sometimes that allows a Divergent Opinion that points to something else. So it is here.

1. From my position, Acts was constructed to show the Divinity of the Flavians by detailing the surrounding Tableau of the 12th Legion and Muciaus, who held Imperial Power in his hands and got rid of Antonius Primus and certain Piso people. YMMV but I'm VERY certain that this is accurate.

OK. Fine.

2. So, what about Luke? I've never been fond of the idea that Luke and Acts were joined at the hips. There's too much relation to Matthew, for example. Consider:

a. Luke 13: 23 - 25 (RSV):

[23] And some one said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them,
[24] "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
[25] When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, `Lord, open to us.' He will answer you, `I do not know where you come from.'

Matthew 18: 2 - 4 (RSV):

[2] And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them,
[3] and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
[4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

These 2 passages are from the same Story. This shows a direct line of Matthew and Luke to a Source Document. Acts shows Source Documents of Tacitus and Josephus and other Roman authors in a manner different from the above 2 passages. Ya' gotta' see it or ya' don't. More verbiage on this subject by request (I'm not holding my breath here...).

b. Date of young Jesus.

Luke 2: 41 - 42 (RSV):

[41] Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.
[42] And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom;

This should be a Time Marker but if it is, it Matches to something not easily seen. Such a Story is not found in Acts. I've Deconstructed the Ascension in Acts, for example, and it in no way reads as in the Luke 2 passages. Aeneas the Cripple is a Parable of the 12th Legion. The Intentionality is not even in the same Area Code as Luke. Compare with:

Luke 2: 36 - 38 (RSV):

[36] And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phan'u-el, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity,
[37] and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.
[38] And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks to God, and spoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.

This, Friends and Neighbors, is a reference to Queen Salome, with a time Marker that references the Passover of 9 CE. In no way is there a reflection in Acts that reads as this passage does.

Again, this is my view and it doesn't resonate with many (any...) on this Site. Nonetheless, I believe it points to a difference in Texts between Luke and Acts. Mebbe somebody WANTED to create a Link but the differences appear, to me, to be too great for a common author(s).

Thnx,

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Sat May 07, 2016 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by Adam » Sat May 07, 2016 11:09 am

Acts 4:12 would have it,
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is not other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (NIV)
This disagrees radically with Matthew 25:31-46, wherein the goats "go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life", a works-based gospel. However, the entire implication of the Synoptics is the same, and in Luke specifically 11:42b, "you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone." For its own similar parable, see Luke 16:19-31, the Rich Man and Lazarus.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 908
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by Charles Wilson » Sat May 07, 2016 5:44 pm

Thank you, Adam.

CW

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Disagreements between Luke and the Acts.

Post by JoeWallack » Sat May 07, 2016 7:57 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:I would like to get some input here. I am interested in looking at indications of internal tension between the gospel of Luke on the one hand and the Acts on the other, spots where the two works appear to disagree on something. The ultimate goal is to evaluate issues of authorship (whether the same individual penned every passage of both works, or whether the same individual collected materials for both works, or whether different individuals penned each work and they were joined by their prefaces artificially at a later date, or anything in between), but the data to be collected ought to be initially free of such considerations.

The most famous instance of a disagreement between Luke and Acts may be the ascension: in Luke it appears to occur on the same day as the resurrection, whereas in Acts it famously occurs 40 days after the resurrection.

What other examples are there?

Ben.
JW:
Something to consider is the big picture, in GLuke/Acts, what gifts are given to the Disciples in order for them to properly promote Jesus. A more basic question is what is the development of whatever convinced the disciples to promote a resurrected Jesus in the first place which looks like this:
  • GMark: = Disciples were never convinced to promote a resurrected Jesus.

    GMatthew: = The appearance of a resurrected Jesus convinces.

    GLuke: = The resurrected Jesus persuaded the disciples to promote a resurrected Jesus.

    GJohn: = The signs from Jesus convinced the disciples.
GLuke to some extent is an apology as to why the disciples did not accept a supposed resurrected Jesus during his supposed ministry. All subsequent Gospels accepted the original GMark as the base. This base showed the disciples as complete failures regarding any kind of continuing Jesus promotion. The subsequents gradually show the disciples as promoting a resurrected Jesus but the righteous critical comment is that the bulk of even the subsequent Gospels show the disciples as continuously failing Jesus. GLuke added the apology that the reason the disciples were failures during the ministry was because they had not received "The Holy Spirit" (from "Luke's" standpoint, the ending of GLuke was also the ending of GMark).

As indicated above GLuke already fits the explanation/apology of the development of the explanation of how the disciples were convinced. The idea of why the disciples were supposedly successful in promotion of a resurrected Jesus, because they received "The Holy Spirit", would be new to the Synoptic tradition, but be the base of Acts. This suggests that "The Holy Spirit" was indeed received by "Luke" but as an addition to the original Gospel of Luke.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], GakuseiDon, Giuseppe, Joseph D. L., lsayre and 48 guests