O
Robert said
Richard Pervo in his Hermeneia commentary on Acts (p 240):The narrative assumes that Saul has ready access to the chief priest and that this official can issue warrants authorizing the apprehension of persons in Damascus and their extradition to Jerusalem. Both are Lucan fictions (cf. Luke 2:1).
On what basis can we safely label it a fiction that Paul had access to the high priest? Surely some (not all) people had access to him; how can we say with confidence that Paul wasn’t among them?
Robert said
In general I am skeptical of attempts to apply redaction criticism to the gospel of Mark or Acts, but I do think the method can sometimes succeed in identifying some of the larger themes or motifs of an author.
Yeah, I’d imagine it is challenging to do redaction criticism without direct access to the sources.
The narrative assumes that Saul has ready access to the chief priest and that this official can issue warrants authorizing the apprehension of persons in Damascus and their extradition to Jerusalem. Both are Lucan fictions (cf. ** you do not have permission to see this link **).
Ok ok Lucan Fictions. We critique these ancient writers from our 21st century perspective. It is probably impossible to do otherwise. But these ancient writers lived in a different conceptual universe than the one we inhabit. Luke could change the story and still be telling the truth.
Stephen said
The narrative assumes that Saul has ready access to the chief priest and that this official can issue warrants authorizing the apprehension of persons in Damascus and their extradition to Jerusalem. Both are Lucan fictions (cf. ** you do not have permission to see this link **).Ok ok Lucan Fictions. We critique these ancient writers from our 21st century perspective. It is probably impossible to do otherwise. But these ancient writers lived in a different conceptual universe than the one we inhabit. Luke could change the story and still be telling the truth.
I’ll bite. How do you imagine the high priest in Jerusalem authorizing the apprehension of someone in Damascus and their extradition to Jerusalem? Please provide some evidence of any such theory.
TTHorne56 said
Stephen said
The narrative assumes that Saul has ready access to the chief priest and that this official can issue warrants authorizing the apprehension of persons in Damascus and their extradition to Jerusalem. Both are Lucan fictions (cf. ** you do not have permission to see this link **).
Ok ok Lucan Fictions. We critique these ancient writers from our 21st century perspective. It is probably impossible to do otherwise. But these ancient writers lived in a different conceptual universe than the one we inhabit. Luke could change the story and still be telling the truth.
I’ll bite. How do you imagine the high priest in Jerusalem authorizing the apprehension of someone in Damascus and their extradition to Jerusalem? Please provide some evidence of any such theory.
I’d be interested too.
Stephen said
Ok let me make explicit what I thought implicit in my comment.But these ancient writers lived in a different conceptual universe than the one we inhabit. Luke could change the story and still be telling the truth from his perspective.
So, just to be clear, are you saying that luke could have known that Paul did not actually get sent by the chief priest to Damascus as a heresy hunter, decided to say that Paul did get sent by the chief priest as a heresy hunter, and intended for his reader to believe that Paul did get sent to Damascus as a heresy hunter, and that would have been a truthful statement on his part?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)