tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post1597211402975701271..comments2024-01-25T00:50:10.679-05:00Comments on Thoughts from a Sandwich: Book Review – Sherwin-White. Part FourDagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-62847510129739211792011-12-21T15:25:03.576-05:002011-12-21T15:25:03.576-05:00Vinny,
I would tend toward the view Luke in parti...Vinny,<br /><br />I would tend toward the view Luke in particular was supplanting both Mark and Matthew. Luke (in my opinion) deliberately removes certain aspects he finds unlikely (especially within the birth narrative, trial, burial and resurrection), and modifies Jesus’ teachings to conform to the problems of his era—late First, early Second Century.<br /><br />Wonder what Luke would think if he time-traveled to today and listened to all these Christmas pageants mish-mashing his and Matthew’s account? Including the star, the magi, the flight to Egypt with his census, shepherds and Hebraic ritual conformance.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-49729594697875275592011-12-21T15:02:13.776-05:002011-12-21T15:02:13.776-05:00Dagoods,
I have no idea what scholars have to say...Dagoods,<br /><br />I have no idea what scholars have to say about the question, but Luke's prologue leads me to think that he intended his to be the definitive version that would supplant earlier attempts. When Luke changes something in Mark, my assumption would be that he thought that Mark got something wrong rather than that his version and Mark's were equally valid.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-3086352626648107032011-12-21T14:12:27.473-05:002011-12-21T14:12:27.473-05:00Vinny,
Sherwin-White treats the gospels independe...Vinny,<br /><br />Sherwin-White treats the gospels independently. He occasionally refers to one as more accurate, or less than the others. He fails to give any indication whatsoever he is even aware of dependence within the Synoptic Gospels. Therefore he fails to address it.<br /><br />Certainly one of the largest problems I have wrestled with is whether the subsequent Gospel writers intended to supplement or supplant the previous gospel they were copying.<br /><br />HeIsSailing,<br /><br />Alas, Sherwin-White fails to cover much material on Felix and Festus, because the protagonist Sherwin-White is addressing—Mommsen—apparently is satisfied with the accounts. Therefore Sherwin-White doesn’t go into much detail.<br /><br />He does discuss Paul’s appeal to Rome in a later lecture, and I will cover the topic then. Sherwin-White indicates the problem was that the charge was political—insurrection—but the evidence was theological—Pauline Christianity v Second Temple Judaism, so the procurators may not have known how to handle it.<br /><br />While the timing may seem long, it was possible. The Jewish leaders would have been happy, since Paul stayed in jail. Felix and Festus may be off the hook, because they were technically doing their job in investigating it, but not very vociferously. And who was complaining? The Christians (or Paul) had no political influence.<br /><br />The sole wrench in that scenario is Paul’s citizenship. Rome, in the form of the emperor, may not look favorably on a Roman citizen being kept so long. But again, who was complaining to Rome?<br /><br />Another interesting aspect to think about. If the Sanhedrin did not have capital punishment—why would Paul appeal to Rome, where they definitely did? With the Sanhedrin Paul would be in danger of a beating, of course, but not beheading. Whereas a conviction of insurrection in Rome would be a short walk to a cross or, if he was a citizen, the beheading block. Remember, punishments came swift. There was no long, drawn-out time on “death row.” <br /><br />Further, in Felix & Festus defense, Judea and Galilee were a bubbling pot of resistance. The Romans were never quite certain what would set them off. They attempted to give respect and deference to their beliefs, yet the occasional flare-up still occurred. <br /><br />The Jews didn’t like being occupied; the Romans were not interested in their land (it was not strategically necessary), so anything “keeping the peace” may have been implemented. Including keeping Paul on ice.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-42597666341743172392011-12-20T23:56:23.565-05:002011-12-20T23:56:23.565-05:00yikes sorry for the typos. Still trying to get use...yikes sorry for the typos. Still trying to get used to this new touchscreen.HeIsSailinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09154368305822276669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-21151035637334507142011-12-20T23:54:26.915-05:002011-12-20T23:54:26.915-05:00The Beowulf epic contains historical people and ba...The Beowulf epic contains historical people and battles. 'Nuff said.<br /><br />DagoodS, perhaps you will cover the Felix and Festus trials in more detail, so I hope I am not jumping the gun here. But if there are historically accurate elements here, should we not also consider parts that seem ... Fishy? Is it likely that Felix had Paul under house arrest for two years without a charge against him, because, as I read it, he wanted the favor of the Jews? for that matter, why did Festus also desire the favor of the Jews? Between these to guys and Pontius Pilates' desire to suck up to the Jews in the Gospel of John, you would think Rome was easily very easily intimidated - something I don't think history will support. DagoodS, do you think it likely that both Festus and Agrippa could declare Paul innocent of all crimes, then still grant an appeal of his case before Caesar? How many people are granted an audience with the Roman Emperor, presuming it also included a sea voyage to Rome, to try a case that had already been cleared? That seems really strange to me. Does Sherwin-White discuss the historical validity of any of this? Am I reading Acts all wrong? Thanks.HeIsSailinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09154368305822276669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-52458490365619103642011-12-20T20:48:58.782-05:002011-12-20T20:48:58.782-05:00What are the implications of the fact that Luke li...What are the implications of the fact that Luke lifted so much of his gospel narrative from Mark? If Luke has shown himself to be such a meticulous historian, doesn't that imply that Mark wasn't?Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-16844364242176995542011-12-20T17:18:20.592-05:002011-12-20T17:18:20.592-05:00Well, there is such a thing as historical fiction....Well, there is such a thing as historical fiction. For instance, Dicken's <i>A Tale of Two Cities</i> is fiction yet it's a great way to learn about the events surrounding the French Revolution. <br /><br />It would be wrong, though, to believe the book characters were real. <br /><br />But also contemporary fiction is often based on reality. Writes sit at cafes for hours on end watching people come and go, and making them into members of their cast. <br /><br />All that to say that I agree. That the OT contains some verifiable facts doesn't make the story of Jesus all true. Maybe he did exist and maybe he was even a preacher. Maybe, even, his followers loved him so much that upon his death they made up all the supernatural stories. <br /><br />Let's remember that some people think Elvis is alive.Lorenahttp://exfundy.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com