Judy Diehl / Denver Seminary
“Anti-Imperial Rhetoric in the New Testament”
Currents in Biblical Research
Kavin Rowe recognizes that in the past, the book of Acts has been seen as a record that defends the possibility that the Roman government and the early Christian movement existed together in peace and harmony (Rowe 2009: 53-54). Rowe makes reference to numerous NT scholars dating back to 1720 who have maintained this positive view of the book of Acts with little adjustment over the years (pp. 3-4).
Luke attempts to narrate the spread of Christianity in such a way as to eliminate any threat to the Roman government.
= = =
Kazuhiko Yamazaki-Ransom.
In agreement with Rowe, Yamazaki-Ransom asserts that in the past, scholarship has ‘neglected’ to fully investigate the political aspects of Luke-Acts. The traditional view has been to understand Luke-Acts as an ‘apologetic’, written to assure the Roman government that Christianity was ‘politically harmless’. Luke-Acts has been seen as ‘the most pro-Roman portion of the New Testament’ (Yamazaki-Ransom 2010: 2).
Yet, Yamazaki-Ransom points out that Luke is the only NT author who ‘locates his narrative explicitly in imperial history’ (Lk. 2.1-2; 3.1-2; Acts 11.28; 18.2). Further, only the author of Luke-Acts refers to the Roman emperors by name in the entire NT (2010: 2-3).
This illustrates that Luke was concerned about the politics of his time, and portrays the Empire from his own point of view.
= = =
Richard Cassidy
Jesus was hardly a danger to the Roman imperial system.
= = =
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
The authentic letters of Paul were definitely written prior to 70 CE. Many critical scholars, probably the majority, believe that Revelation was written later, during the persecution of Domitian, when there was a belief that a Nero redivivus would return. All of the other NT books are typically dated to post 70 CE by critical scholars.
I don’t think this accounts for the change in christian stance towards the Roman empire.
Makes more sense that the change is in response to the first Roman persecution of christians; Nero’s.
Yes. I think there’s only ever given one solid reason for dating the synoptics post 70. That they appear to mention the destruction of the temple.
But I think the prophecy of the temple’s destruction is not precise enough to warrant its dating post the event. And Matthew/Mark’s version actually contradicts the event – no abomination which causes desolation associated with the temple’s destruction.
Robert
From one angle, the Christian movement was a ‘competing reality’ within the Roman pagan culture. From another angle, Luke attempts to narrate the spread of Christianity in such a way as to eliminate any threat to the Roman government. While Luke’s goal is the creation of a totally new pattern of life, an entirely new culture, that is fundamentally different from the most important aspects of Gentile society, he must demonstrate that ‘of all forms of sedition and treason, Christianity is innocent’ (p. 91).
Steefen
I see this more readily with Paul and his letter to the Romans.
Luke as an influencer on Roman society without even directing his works to the Roman empire? ? ?
Robert
Well ‘Luke’ was describing Paul’s mission to the gentiles, even ending his account with Paul in Rome, telling the Roman Jewish leaders that ‘this salvation of God has been sent to the gentiles, who will indeed listen’ and “proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.” Thus, yes, I do think Luke clearly intended for the Christian movement to have an effect on the larger Roman and pagan culture. I would not read Luke’s two works as mere Flavian propaganda to pacify the rebellious Jewish people.
Steefen
You are not speaking to my reply.
Luke is more directed to the Romans than Paul’s letter to the Romans? Less?
Romans who just finished putting down the Jewish Revolt want to read about a 180 degree spiritual messiah? 180 degree because this Jesus of Galilee who fought Vespasian at the Battle of Galilee has now disappeared from history reappearing 40 years earlier in time, unable to be a threat to a general/future emperor during a time of insurrection and only a less real threat to Tiberius which did not experience large scale insurrection?
Who is closer in time to the gospel writers?
A. The Galilean Jesus who fought Vespasian at the Battle of Galilee
B. The Biblical Galilean Jesus who was not conceived without supernatural help, where one gospel says he was born in a certain year while another gospels says he was born in a different year. If there was some supernatural conception one would think the year that happened, or 9 months later, it would have been duly noted. The Biblical Galilean Jesus who did miracles decades before the Galilean Jesus who fought Vespasian?
Answer: A.
It is contributing evidence and contributing context of how a plot narrative was added to Pauline Christology about the meaning of the failed attempts (some resulting in death) of all first century messiahs prior and/or apocalyptic prophets to his writing: 1) the three rebels (Atronges, Judah, and Simon), 2) the Samaritan Restorer slain by order of Pontius Pilate, 3) the Egyptian Prophet, 4) the Woe-Saying Jesus, 5) Jesus of Galilee with a band of mariners who fought Vespasian, 6) Manahen, and more.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)