Opened her heart

The reading today includes the beginning of the “we passages” in Acts and also the phrase that the Lord “opened her heart” which did not immediately register with me because the sermon was on the gospel reading from John. Later in the day after my constitutional walk, I realized that Luke is alerting us in Acts 16:10-14 that this passage alludes to an earlier “we passage” in Luke where Lord opened their hearts. Thus the experience of Lydia is compared to that of Peter at Shavuot in Acts 2:37 and that of Cleopas and his companion on the road to Emmaus, all paralleled in 2 Macc 1:2-4. 

Cleopas told the unknown person traveling with them what “our chief priests and rulers” did. This is an earlier use of a first person plural similar to that of the famous “we passages” in Acts that begins with Acts 16:10 where Luke indicates his presence in the incidents recounted. 

Age of Theophilus and date of publication of Luke

Jens Bjernemose has left a new comment on your post "The Significance of Mocking": 

How early do you date Luke, if you think he can address the grandfather of someone healed in the 30'es? Even at the very best that would put Theophilus close to 100. 

Age of Theophilus and Date of Publication of the Gospel of Luke

There are several undisputed facts. With one exception, the high priests named in the New Testament are members of the Family of Annas. Bauckham said: “It is noteworthy that in every known case action against the Jerusalem church or its leaders was taken when the reigning high priest was one of those who belonged to the powerful Sadducean family of Annas (Ananus).”

Annas served as High Priest from 6 to 15 CE and five of his sons and one famous son-in-law, beginning with Eleazar served over the next fifty years: Eleazar, 16-17 CE; Caiaphas, 18-37 CE; Jonathan, 3 or 5 months in 37 CE; Theophilus, 37-41 CE; Matthias, Ant. 19:316, 342; and Ananus, short time in 62 CE, Ant. 20:223. A grandson of Annas served as the next to the last High Priest: Matthias, son of Theophilus, 65-67, Ant. 20:223. 

Josephus records the death of Jonathan by Sicarii (AJ 20:162–66)and notes just prior to the incident when James was killed during the time when Ananus, son of Ananus, was High Priest that Annas, the H.P. was a remarkable man having five sons who served as High Priest, AJ 20.197. Thus Annas the father of Theophilus was alive in 62 C.E. and Theophilus was still alive when his son served as High Priest in 65-67. Josephus provides the details of the family of Annas but did not normally report the death of a high priest unless he died in office. Josephus mentions the tomb of Annas (Bellum 5.506) suggesting Ananus died shortly before the beginning of the war with Rome.

Wealthy people lived longer in the first century than the average peasants as illustrated by the family of Annas. The marriages in the family of Herod were arranged for political convenience and this was also true for the high priestly families. Herod the Great, who is the daughter of a Nabatean princess, arranged the marriage of Herod Antipas to Phasaelis, a Nabathean princess, daughter of Aretas IV. [Herod arranged marriages, see AJ. 17.14-18] Annas or Caiaphas probably arranged the marriage of Joanna to Chuza, steward of Herod Antipas. This places a member of the most important high priestly family in the court of Herod Antipas. Since Chuza is a documented Nabatean name, Chuza was probably the person in the Nabatean court responsible for the personal safety and well being of the Nabatean princess and the princess, or more likely her father, arranged for Chuza to be the chief steward of her husband’s estate as part of the marriage arrangement. Chuza and the Princess returned home to Nabatea when the Princess discovered she was about to be divorced [26 C.E.). Herod Antipas divorced his wife and married one of his relatives. John the Baptist lost his head for criticizing the remarriage [AJ. 18.109-124; see also Lk. 3:19-20; 9:7] but the year of the death of John is unknown. Josephus reports that the King Aretas IV (reigned 9 BCE to 40 CE) of Nabatea successfully waged war (date not clear from Josephus) against Herod Antipas. AJ 18.116-119. Aretas probably waited for an opportune time to attack Antipas. The followers of John claimed the war was retribution against Herod Antipas for killing John the Baptist.

Against his complicated background, Joanna becomes a follower of Jesus. As part of the arranged marriage a ketubbah had been provided for double the normal value ensuring only a well to do person would marry the daughter of a high priestly family. The ketubbah was the personal property of Johanna and provided insurance in event of divorce or death.

The marriage of Joanna was probably arranged when she was 12 years old or even earlier. The marriages of the sons of the high priest were probably arranged before they were 14 years of age. By the time Theophilus is 28 years old, he is a grandfather. If Joanna is 18 when she becomes a follower of Jesus, Theophilus would be 46 and about 53 years old when he becomes High Priest. 

What we know today as the Gospel of Luke was addressed to most excellent Theophilus when he was High Priest; when Acts is published in the early sixties, Theophilus is addressed without the title, most excellent, indicating he is no longer high priest.

These estimates of age are based upon information about Jewish marriages practices contained in the writings of Tal Ilan. All ages of Johanna and Theophilus are estimates, in this proposal designed solely to demonstrate the plausibility of Johanna being the granddaughter of Theophilus

Copyrighted © 2013

The Significance of Mocking

In an earlier article entitled “Others mocking said,” I suggested that Luke was mocking Theophilus because he still did not believe in the resurrection, the power of God and the saving acts that occurred among us. Thus the author is engaged in a dialogue with his First Reader.

Luke begins his masterpiece with these words addressed t most excellent Theophilus, the High Priest:

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us,
just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,
it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.” RSV

This first verse lets Theophilus know that this narrative which he is about to read describes the savings acts “which have been accomplished among us.” It is unmistakably clear that the phrase “among us” means the author and the recipient are both eyewitnesses to some of these events. This is not to say that Theophilus and Luke witnessed each and every act described but that they both have personal knowledge of these events. As noted in Lk. 1:4, Theophilus had previously been informed of many of these events, probably by Joanna. As detailed in my eBook, available from Amazon, Theophilus is the grandfather of Joanna who is mentioned in two places in the Gospel of Luke. In the first instance, Joanna is healed by Jesus, an event which she no doubt informed her grandfather. In the second instance, Johanna is an eyewitness to the resurrection and one of the woman labeled by the disciples as presenting an “idle tale.” You may recall that Jesus also healed the servant of the High Priest when one of his disciples cut off this person’s right ear. Theophilus, as the son of the High Priest Ananus and the brother-in-law of Caiaphas, the reigning High Priest, was certainly informed of this miraculous event. Thus Theophilus had first hand information about three miracles. 

His father was the High Priest when Jesus appeared in the Temple at age twelve and amazed his audience with “his understanding and his answers.” Just his father as High Priest heard about this event, Theophilus heard about the event of Pentecost which occurred in the temple courtyard and may have been one of the “men of Judea” who “mocking said, ‘They are filled with new wine.’”

In “Others mockingly said,” it was also noted that this verse which includes “they are filled with new wine” is an allusion to the inclusio in 3 Maccabees 5:1-10 where the king made the elephants drunk by feeding them wine so that they would stampede and kill the Judeans who are his prisoners. Although 3 Maccabees is probably a satire, it is unmistakably clear that message is that God saved them. Thus the allusion to the drinking elephants is quite effective.

Thus it is clear that Luke is mocking Theophilus who has more first hand knowledge than any of us, yet he still does not believe in the saving power of God. The significance of the mocking is clear that both Luke and Theophilus are contemporaries of Jesus and the eyewitnesses.

Luke is in dialogue with his Reader, Most Excellent Theophilus, the High Priest.  

Copyrighted © 2013

Another view of the Hebrews and the Hellenists, Part I

I am very much interested in Chapter 6-8 of Acts and particularly interested in identifying the “Hebrews and the Hellenists.” Todd Penner in his book, In Praise of Christian Origins, on page 71 citing in footnote 28, 2 Macc 4:10, 13,  suggest that Luke has given us no clues as to how he wants the reader to understand the identity of these two groups. In my opinion both the Hellenists and Hebrews are outsiders having been denied access to the Temple and have to rely upon the followers of Jesus for food and assistance. 

I do think that Luke does give us a major clue in Acts 8:2 in his use of two different hapax. I believe that Luke is telling us that Stephen died defending his traditional view of the faith.

In Acts 8:2, we read: “Devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him.” Initially we note that the Greek word εὐλαβεῖς for devout and the Greek word κοπετὸ for lamentation are both Lucan hapax appearing only in Acts. It may be that verses 2:5 which states “Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven” and 8:2 form an inclusio with “devout men” as the bookends. These Jews had respect for Stephen and his views and saw him as a noble and righteous man, a man like Simeon.

This Greek word εὐλαβεῖς for devout appear in the Septuagint in two places of interest. In Lev. 15:31, the LXX states: “You shall make the sons of Israel be reverent εὐλαβεῖς because of their uncleanness.” Secondly in Micah 7:2, the LXX reading says: “For the reverent εὐλαβής one are destroyed and there does not exist one keeping straight among men.” Luke suggests that Stephen was such a devout man that devout men buried and made lamentation over him. Yet other men considered Stephen to be so unclean that they stoned him.

The Greek phrase κοπετὸν μέγαν only appears in Acts 8:2 and Genesis LXX 50:10 which is part of the narrative of Joseph burying his father in the land of Canaan beyond the Jordan at the cave that Abraham had purchased as a burial site. Luke, in alluding to Genesis LXX 50:10 in Acts 8:2, with his use of the Greek phrase κοπετὸν μέγαν is telling us he is aware of the two burial site traditions and that Stephen had used a burial tradition offensive to the temple establishment. 

As noted earlier, Luke used the Greek word for lamentation which is a hapax in Acts. This Greek phrase κοπετὸν μέγαν for “great lamentation” also appears in 1 Maccabees 2:70; 4:39; 9:20 and 13:26. The death of Mattathias is described in these words: “And he died in the hundred forty and sixth year, and his sons buried him in the sepulchres of his fathers at Modin, and all Israel made great lamentation for him.” The third and fourth citations describe the death and burial at Modin of Judas and Jonathan respectively. 1 Macc 4:39 describes how the men mourned with great lamentation when “they saw the sanctuary [at Mount Zion] desolate, the altar profaned, and the gates burned.”

The Hellenizers in Maccabees and in the first century include many priests and high ranking members of the temple establishment. Just as the author of 1 Maccabees refrains from accusing the leading Hellenizers of idolatry (Goldstein), so does Luke. This is surprising in light of the strong anti-idol polemic that appears throughout Acts of the Apostles. It may however explain why many priests joined the movement. They were more conservative than the ranking members of the temple establishment.

Luke intends to direct our attention to the conflict and opposition between Hellenism and Judaism that arose in the time of the Maccabees and more particularly to his identification of the Hellenists (perhaps more accurately Hellenizers) of Acts 6 with the Hellenizers of 1 Maccabees. According to historian Elias Bickerman, the Hellenizers of 1 Maccabees wanted to preserve aspects of Judaism that fit with Greek ideals, like a universal God, but to remove those parts of Jewish practice that separated Jews from others: dietary laws, Sabbath observance, circumcision.

Stephen’s last sermon is really a dialogue with more than one group. Stephen successfully challenged the Hellenizers and they complained to the temple establishment. Both the Hellenizers and the temple establishment were happy to eliminate Stephen. Saul originally challenged the Hellenizers, but he like the temple establishment also opposed Stephen, because Stephen wanted to include within Judaism those members on the fringe who were denied access to the Temple food distribution system. 

It was an unusual dialogue!

Copyrighted © 2013

Blame it on the Samaritans

The reading from Acts 8:14-17 for Jan 13th 2013 is some what of an enigma if you have attempting to explain why it was necessary for the church in Jerusalem to send Peter and John to Samaria. However if you look at the story as one about an emerging religious movement in transition it makes a little bit more sense. In fact the leaders had to play catch up with zealots spreading the message outside of Jerusalem as directed by the Risen Lord apparently before the leaders were ready.

It confirms that there was a bit of tension within the movement when the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because the widows were being neglected. The tensions existed in part because the Samaritans were doing the neglecting. It is worth noting that Luke considers this dispute to be within the movement and considers the Samaritans to be Jewish [Acts 11:19 “speaking the word to none except Jews”]

While we are speculating, perhaps we should consider this a third strange incident [See Two Strange Incidents which I posted 6 and half years ago] and yet another example where the author is criticizing the Apostles.

Copyrighted © 2013

I have posted

My duties as primary caretaker are over and now while I am grieving I have returned to my writing.

Others mocking, said

I write to suggest that in verses 2:13 and 17:32 of Acts, Luke is mocking Theophilus because he still does not believe. Typically verse 13 is analyzed with reference to the sweet wine and whether the people were drunk from drinking sweet wine [γλεῦκος] not usually available at this time of the year. The focus is misplaced. This short verse contains two Lucan hapax legomena both of which allude to the same Greek words in Maccabees. The first hapax is μεμεστωμένοι translated in Acts 2:13 “They are filled.” This hapax alludes to the lemma μεμεστωμένος in 3 Macc 5:1 and the lemma μεμεστωμένους in 3 Macc 5:10. The two Greek lemma, μεμεστωμένοι and μεμεστωμένους, create an inclusio directing our attention to the enclosed narrative where we read that the king made his elephants drunk so that they could massacre the Judeans. The Greek word in Maccabees is a hapax in the LXX. The remainder of the chapter tells how God saved the Judeans.

The second hapax διαχλευάζω is a compound Greek word δια + χλευάζω translated in Acts 2:13 as “mocking.” This hapax could allude to the Greek word χλευάσασα in 2 Macc 7:27 where the mother mocks the tyrant who is torturing her son. This allusion lets us know that Luke believes Stephen was stoned because he defended his understanding of the ancestral way of life as part of his faith.

This hapax could allude to another lemma χλευάζεις in 4 Macc 5:22. In verse 22 we read “You scoff at our philosophy as though living by it were irrational, . . . ” In this verse the word “scoff” is the translation for χλευάζω. 

In Acts 17:32 we read “Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, ‘We will hear you again about this’” where Luke used the Greek word χλευάζω instead of διαχλευάζω suggesting he is now alluding to 4 Macc 5:22 which may have not been previously available to him. Luke in numerous instances in his first letter to Theophilus used the Greek word ἐμπαίζω for mock. Howver in Acts he used διαχλευάζω, an absolute hapax, but switching to χλευάζω, a hapax in the NT, later in his narrative. Thus the Greek hapax now alludes to this verse:  “You scoff at our philosophy as though living by it were irrational, . . .” 

There are two clues that Luke intends the First Reader to understand this as an allusion to 4 Macc 5:22. In Act 17:18, we read: Some also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers met him. And some said, “What would this babbler say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”--because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. Thus 14 verses prior to verse 32, Luke uses the Greek word φιλόσοφος for philosophers which is a hapax in Luke and appears three times in 4 Macc. 5:7; 7:7, 21 as φιλοσοφεῖν. Verse 21 is one verse before the verse that is the target verse. The second clue is use of the NT Greek hapax λῆρος translated as “idle tale” in Lk. 24:11 which alludes to the LXX hapax λῆρον in 4 Macc 5:11.

We can make this inference because χλευάζω and its lemma only appear three times in the Septuagint and Luke has used rare word allusions as markers directing the attention of Theophilus to 4 Macc 5:7-22.

Luke is mocking Theophilus because he still does not believe in the power of God and the saving acts that occurred among us.

Copyrighted © 2012

Footnote: γλεῦκος is a hapax in Acts 2:13 and in LXX Job 32:19.

Footnote: 3 Maccabees uses the Greek word οἴνῳ for wine in 3 Macc 5:2 and οἴνου in 3 Macc 5:10, 45.

Footnote: Theophilus, as High Priest from 37 to 41 C.E., is aware that Acts of the Apostles is proceeding chronologically and that Luke will soon be discussing the stoning of Stephen, an event he witnessed.

Footnote: χλευαζεις is a rare word in the LXX appearing twice in Maccabees and once in Wisdom.

God is not a Penn State fan

There have been so many editorials, opinions, comments that I am starting to wonder if I could actually say anything new or profound about the scandal. That having been said, I think we need to recognize what the scandal says about ourselves as individuals in a society that has been high-jacked by what I would say is a rather liberal view of what is permissible sexuality and a demand for political correctness that overrides being theologically correct. Political correctness requires that we be diplomatic, that is to say, recognizing when we should say nothing. Many church people being very diplomatic, vote with their feet. I have been sitting in the pew wondering if I am still a Lutheran. We have been silence when we should have been shouting.

The irony is the Lutheran doctrine of Sola Scriptura has inevitably led to this liberalism sanctioned by a new interpretation of scripture which I deplore. Theology has changed to meet new circumstances, something that St. Luke recognized, even it those who made the change do not recognize it.

This liberalism has made it possible for someone to credibly say I was horsing around with the boys. I am hoping and praying that we recognize that this new liberalism and the defense which it has spawned is horse manure.

Copyrighted © 2011