tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-98781512024-03-12T22:26:49.760-05:00dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos TheophilosDedicated to the writings of Saint Luke.Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.comBlogger753125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-56981808105231873162014-02-26T15:47:00.001-05:002014-02-26T15:47:41.020-05:00The Elegant UniverseIn The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene describes “A universe in which space and time are malleable, a universe in which the fabric of space can rip, . . . .” This sounds like something from the Gospel of Mark where at the baptism of Jesus the heaven is ripped.<br />
<br />
Perhaps Mark was a scientist and a professor of physics and mathematics.<br />
<br />
Now, I have decide whether it is more important to read The Elegant Universe or the Gospel of Mark in order to better understand the world in which we live.<br />
<br />
© copyrighted 2014 <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-19776465265067270202014-02-24T20:47:00.001-05:002014-02-24T20:47:55.887-05:00Messianic Secret<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">Yesterday I read the Gospel of Mark in one sitting and noticed that Mark has included some unusual features in his account of the baptism of Jesus which can only explained by Mark copying both Matthew and Luke. Only Mark has ‘torn’ but more importantly only Luke tells us that the crowd heard and saw the event. Both Mark & Matthew have the pronoun ‘he’ indicating, according to them, only Jesus saw and heard the theophany which means that Matthew and Mark, or one of them, acquired the account from Luke and the other copied it. Since Mark has a strong messianic secret no one not even Mark could know about this event until later and none of gospels has Jesus telling the disciples what happened at his baptism. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">William Wrede first identified the existence of the theme of the Messianic secret and indicated it was not historical but was an addition by the author of Mark. Wrede also suggested that his theory would work best if Marcan priority turned out to be false.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">© copyrighted 2014</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-73905399695924324982014-02-12T05:59:00.000-05:002014-02-12T06:07:31.224-05:00Votive Practices at Mount Gerizim<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">The recent PhD Thesis by Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme © 2011 with the lengthy title, <i>Before the God in this Place for Good Remembrance: An Analysis of the Votive Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim</i> contain the following statements:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">“Gerizim in the 2nd century BCE and therefore the votive inscriptions from Gerizim offer us a rather unique window to Yahwistic votive practice in Hellenistic period Palestine.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">As mentioned above, the conclusion is reached that there is nothing particularly ‘Samaritan’ about the worship carried out on Mount Gerizim in the 2nd century BCE, but that the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim simply gives us an example of Yahwistic worship in Hellenistic period Palestine.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">(c) copyrighted 2014</span></div>
Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-60760565385706013922014-02-11T06:52:00.000-05:002014-02-11T06:59:02.397-05:00Archaeology of Shechem and Samaria<span style="font-size: large;">In 1983 archaeological excavations were begun on Mount Gerizim which continued uninterrupted for twenty-two years. Yitzhak Magen, according to the preliminary report of these excavations, dates the first temple to the middle of the 5th century BCE. Magen’s excavation also led to the discovery of three Proto-Ionic capitals, “of this type, date to the Iron age and generally appear in temples.” Thus, Mount Gerizim was a cultic center beginning from the Iron age.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Magen’s findings are consistent with the Biblical account that Omri of Israel built the city of Samaria (2 Kings 16:24; Mesha Stele; around 885 BCE). According to Norma Franklin, Omri selected this site for the newly established capital of the northern Kingdom of Israel because “it served as the hub of a highly specialized and lucrative oil and wine industry that flourished throughout southern Samaria.” More likely Omri wanted the capital to be close to the existing cultic center on Mount Gerizim because this was “the place that the Lord has chosen.” </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In fact as established by Stefan Schorch, the original text of the MT was changed. “Thus, the textual change from ‘he has chosen’ (Heb) to ‘he will chose’ (Heb) seems to have taken place in the period between 4QMMT and the Temple Scroll, i.e. around the middle of the 2nd century B.C.E.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">“The readings found today in the Samaritan Pentateuch (i.e. ‘Mount Gerizim’ in Deut 27:4 and ‘he has chosen’ in the centralization formula) were part of the original text” accepted by both the Jerusalem Temple and the Mount Gerizim sanctuary communities.</span>Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-57959156060284869762014-02-05T11:19:00.000-05:002014-02-05T11:20:43.771-05:00Chronicles as a source for Luke<span style="font-size: large;">The Chronicler described a community acting together to help their captives in these words: “ . . . and took the captives, and with the spoil they clothed all that were naked among them; they clothed them, gave them sandals, provided them with food and drink, and anointed them; and carrying all the feeble among them on asses, they brought them to their kinsfolk at Jericho, the city of palm trees. Then they returned to Sama'ria.” 2 Chr 28:15</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Japhet said that “Nowhere else in the Bible do we find a community of men, motivated by purely humanitarian and religious causes, acting in perfect unity in order to help their captives.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The Samaritans rendered aid and assistance to their captives because the Judeans were their brothers.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The I-95 corridor storm has made travel dangerous setting a record for power outages.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-31391223931123511132014-02-01T12:19:00.000-05:002014-02-01T12:20:56.694-05:00Special Treatment<span style="font-size: large;">Jesus is treated as special but we only appreciate this special treatment in the Gospel of Luke by comparing Luke to Matthew and Mark. By implication, this may mean this may mean that neither Matthew nor Mark understood his sources or modified them for their Hellenistic audience. Furthermore this special treatment may implicate our understanding of the synoptic relationship.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Koet teaches that God speaks mouth to mouth with Moses and Jesus. The unique position of Moses and Jesus may explain the occurrence of dreams and visions in Acts of the Apostles and their absence in the Gospel of Luke.</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-58497391223586583172014-01-26T07:34:00.001-05:002014-01-26T07:34:41.013-05:00Jesus as the eschatological priest<span style="font-size: large;">There are a number of enigmatic passages that can be better understood once we recognize that both Jesus and Theophilus are</span><a href="">Labels</a><span style="font-size: large;"> priests. Since 1997, there has been a paradigm shift in Lucan studies in that academic scholarship has begun to recognize that both Luke and Theophilus are Jewish, and not Gentiles, and that most excellent Theophilus served as High Priest from 37 to 41 C.E. Secondly, beginning in 2004, scholars have acknowledged that perhaps Jesus in his sermon in Nazareth was telling us he is a special kind of priest.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Isaiah 61 speaks, in the first person, of an “anointed” figure whose activities seem to suggest that he is an eschatological prophet. Scripture has identified only two prophets as having been anointed: Elijah and Elisha, both mentioned by Jesus in his sermon in Nazareth. The anointing of Elijah and Elisha indicates they were both high priests. This identification of the anointed one of Isaiah 61 with a priest is supported by the mention of the priesthood in Isaiah 61:6 in these words: “But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord . . . .” The priestly nature of the anointed figure in Isaiah 61, the quotation from Isaiah 61:1-2 and the reference to Elijah and Elisha in the sermon is evidence that hidden polemics has been employed to advocate that Jesus is a special kind of priest. Fifty verses later, in Lk 5:24, Jesus, speaking as the son of man, claimed he had the power to forgive sins, and parenthetically,</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">consequently rendered the sacrificial system obsolete.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The poor, blind, captives and the oppressed are all named when the Lucan Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” A number of the scholars who have examined this passage have noted that the captives and the oppressed are never mentioned again. These scholars failed to recognize the creativity of Luke.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Luke begins his gospel by having a priest from the hill country offer sacrifice in the Temple. The wife of this hill country priest is one “of the daughters of Aaron.” Zachariah and Elizabeth are both described as “righteous before God.” Thus the Greek word, δίκαιος, is first applied to righteous individuals such as Zachariah and his wife Elizabeth and Simeon then applied by the centurion to Jesus on the cross. In his second letter written in early sixties, Luke continues in the next step of progression to designate Jesus as “the Righteous One” and “the righteous one” as “the son of man” and eschatological agent of God. The designation in Acts appears only speeches delivered to Jewish audiences in Jerusalem.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Zechariah and Elizabeth live in a city of Judah in the hill county (Lk 1:39). According to Joshua 20:7, Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron), located in hill country of Judah, is a city of refuge. Thus Zechariah is a priest with a ministry to persons who have fled to the levitical place of refuge in Hebron, whose “guests” living in a self imposed exile as captives, receive “atonement” upon the death of the high priest. The last “righteous” priest of the old levitical order is a special kind of priest. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This new series of blog postings will explain how “righteous” as a adjective used originally as a term of piety for a simple rural priest and his wife became a term, used interchangeably, to designate Jesus as the eschatological high priest.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This new series of blog postings will also attempt to establish that the messianic hopes are fulfilled in Jesus as the eschatological high priest.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This is a work in progress.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">© copyrighted 2014.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-60397973349253532012014-01-19T21:14:00.000-05:002014-01-19T21:14:42.724-05:00Enoch and “dry ground”<span style="font-size: large;">The most interesting approach to the dating of Enoch is that of Charlesworth and his analysis of the meaning and significance of the use of the phrase “dry ground” in the Parables (En 48:8; 62:9; 63:1-10). Prior to the 19th century, Palestine was defined by two types of land: the dry land, and the swamps and marshes. Where were the swamps located? According to Charlesworth, “they defined the low country near the coast, the vast areas west of Kinneret, and especially the land in Hulah Valley.” Charlesworth also noted that many Jewish people lost their land during Herod’s reign to Herod and his hierarchy. Ant. 17.304-14. Moreover, according to Charles worth “the best location for those who live near swamps – non dry ground – and lament the loss of dry ground to the Herodians and their henchmen, is the Hulah Valley, the large swampy area from Dan or Banias to Bethsaida or Capernaum.” The transfiguration took place near Banias.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Furthermore, “archaeological excavations strengthen the conclusion we obtained by focusing on texts. The recent excavations help us understand that two-thirds of the desirable land (the dry land) was lost to the Herodian dynasty from the end of the first century BCE to the first two decades of the first century CE. The appearance of large sumptuous manor houses and palatial abodes witness to a new development in the Herodian period.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">An article, not cited by Charlesworth, written by Berlin [Biblical Archaeologist 60:1 (1997)] about material cultural change and settlement patterns observed:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">“By the early mid first century BCE, most of the regions around the perimeter of the Hasmonean kingdom were very largely depopulated. All sorts of sites, cities and villas, rural farmsteads were abandoned. In the Hula Valley, Tel Anafa was abandoned in 75 BCE; in the Akko plain scores of </span><span style="font-size: large;">small farmsteads were deserted in the early first century; on the coast, Dor, Strato’s Tower, and Ashdod sat unoccupied by the beginning the first century; in the foothills and in Idumea, Gezer, and Maresha lay deserted.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The provenance of Enoch is believed to be Upper Galilee, the same areas described by Berlin as “largely depopulated” in the first century BCE. Enoch does not tell us how the “those who rule the dry ground” acquired their land or how the “righteous ones” lost their land. Berlin certainly confirms these areas “largely depopulated” would be available for easy taking.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">© copyrighted 2014</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-86717999341407763212014-01-14T18:43:00.000-05:002014-01-14T18:50:29.486-05:00Son of Man in Luke II<span style="font-size: large;">Recently, there are been considerable interest in the Parables of Enoch which constitutes Chapters 37 to 72 of the Book of Enoch. In the Parables, the author adds four titles which did not previously appear in the Enochic writings. “Righteous One” appears 4x in Ethiopic text of the Parables, but in only one of these occurrences is “righteous One” used as an individual title of the eschatological leader: 1 En 53:6. VanderKam points out that in the Parables this title is never used alone in application to an eschatological figure; it is found only with another title, “Chosen One.” For Orlov, “This conjunction serves as a significant clue that in the Parables all four titles of the elevated messianic character are closely connected.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">“Anointed One” which occurs 2x, En 48:10 & 52 is based upon Ps 2:2, a biblical source. “Chosen One” used many times in the Parables designating an eschatological character with possible biblical roots. “Son of Man” appears multiple times in En 46:2,3,4; 48:2; 62:5,7,9,14; 63:11; 69:26,27,29*; 70:1; 71:14; 71:17. Some features of the son of man recall details found in Dan 7, where one a messianic figure designated as “one like the son of man.” These four titles seem to be used interchangeably in the Parables and refer to one composite figure.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Nine years ago, I did a series of articles on Enoch with the observation that both the books of Jubilees and Enoch are Palestinian writings used as a source by Luke with five examples provided for Enoch but I did not venture further because in my mind there was considerable dispute among scholars about the dating of the Book of Parables and whether it was a Jewish writing. Lately a consensus has developed that it is a Jewish writing with most scholars agreeing that in published during the reign of Herod the Great. I subsequently concluded that in Luke the “son of man” was the eschatological high priest, which I developed further in my book, Who are Johanna and Theophilus?: The Irony of the Intended Audience of the Gospel of Luke, available as an e-book at Amazon Books</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Luke’s use of the term “Righteous One” in Acts 3:14; 7:52 and 22:14 is probably based upon 1 Enoch 53 since in these passages in Acts “the Righteous One” is an eschatological agent of God. The designation in Acts appears only speeches delivered to Jewish audiences in Jerusalem.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Luke uses the phrase “chosen one” twice in his gospel: Luke 9:35 “And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!" and Luke 23:35 “And the people stood by, watching; but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, "He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!"</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Luke makes clear that Jesus is the “anointed one” in Lk 4:18 </span><span style="font-size: large;">"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In the story of healing the paralytic, his friends removed the tiles to create a hole in roof of house so that they could lower him on his bed into the middle of crowded room. When the Lucan Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Man your sins are forgiven you.” A dialogue on forgiveness postponed the miracle that crowd had expected to witness. Judaism asserted that only God can forgive sins. The dialogue was concluded with the statement by Jesus that he would demonstrate his authority to forgive sins by healing the paralytic. In this pericope, Jesus refers to himself for the first time as “son of man.” In fact, Jesus had applied this title to himself 25 times in direct discourse beginning in Lk. 5:24. Stephen in Acts 7:56 used the phrase “son of man” in these words: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Although I have not yet demonstrated in this blog, I believe that Luke has appropriated the Enochic books as a source. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">At the beginning of the Gospel, the angel Gabriel appears to Zechariah. I Enoch 20:2-8 names Gabriel as one of the seven archangels and one of the four closest to the throne of God (I Enoch 10:9; 40:3,9; cf. Lk. 1:19). Gabriel delivers special revelations from God to individuals (Lk. 1:8-20; 26-38).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The Gospel of Luke contains the genealogy of Jesus of Nazareth in Lk. 3:23-35 in seventy-seven generations. The author of the Book of Watchers states the Day of Judgment would take place seventy generations after Enoch. Since Enoch is the seventh generation and Luke has placed Jesus in the seventy-seventh generation, has Luke in agreement with Enoch suggested that the end of history would be in the </span><span style="font-size: large;">seventy-seven generation? Luke presents Jesus as the Messiah and that the last judgment is very, very near.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Enoch 93:7 states “Those, too, who acquire gold and silver, shall justly and suddenly perish. Woe to you who are rich, for in your riches have you trusted; but from your riches you shall be removed.” Luke 6:24 states “Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The Transfiguration in Luke 9:35 was previously mentioned.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Scholars have long recognized that there is a parallel between the last chapters of Enoch and the Gospel of Luke. Nickelsburg and Grenstedhave noted the parallelism between Luke 16 and 1 Enoch while others have noted the parallels with the deuteronomic injunctions against oppressive treatment of the poor in Israel. Not unlike Jesus' warning, 1 Enoch 103:5-8 delivers a stinging indictment of Sadducees with 'ill-gotten wealth' who live extravagantly only to descend to Sheol. These observations only confirm the very Jewish nature of the parable.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Finally, the Return of the Seventy periscope is an another possible reason in that the fall from heaven is a regular theme in the Enochic literature.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">It is about time that the significance of these findings be further explored and developed.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">(c)</span><span style="font-size: large;">copyrighted 2014</span><br />
<br />
<br />Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-70694876217836808172013-05-05T18:44:00.000-05:002013-05-05T18:50:01.680-05:00Opened her heart<br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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. </span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-7441476819023866702013-03-05T09:10:00.000-05:002013-03-05T09:10:48.963-05:00Age of Theophilus and date of publication of Luke<br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Jens Bjernemose has left a new comment on your post "The Significance of Mocking": </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><b>Age of Theophilus and Date of Publication of the Gospel of Luke</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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).”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Copyrighted © 2013</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<br />
Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-29000063326520801682013-03-01T06:04:00.000-05:002013-03-01T06:04:03.165-05:00The Significance of Mocking<br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Luke begins his masterpiece with these words addressed t most excellent Theophilus, the High Priest:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.” RSV</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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.’”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Luke is in dialogue with his Reader, Most Excellent Theophilus, the High Priest. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Copyrighted © 2013</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<br />
Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-72675996756827511852013-02-25T16:10:00.000-05:002013-02-27T20:09:29.892-05:00Another view of the Hebrews and the Hellenists, Part I<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">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.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">It was an unusual dialogue!</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #224455; color: white; font-family: 'courier new'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17.671875px;">Copyrighted © 2013</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-82911060364769518972013-01-13T22:32:00.000-05:002013-02-27T20:14:38.789-05:00Blame it on the Samaritans<br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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”]</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #224455; color: white; font-family: 'courier new'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17.671875px;">Copyrighted © 2013</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-17481887105642225422012-12-20T07:45:00.002-05:002012-12-20T07:45:44.739-05:00I have posted<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">My duties as primary caretaker are over and now while I am grieving I have returned to my writing.</span>Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-61636495212672565092012-12-20T07:41:00.001-05:002013-02-27T20:15:03.051-05:00Others mocking, said<div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>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. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>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, . . .” </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Luke is mocking Theophilus because he still does not believe in the power of God and the saving acts that occurred among us.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: #224455; color: white; font-family: 'courier new'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17.671875px;">Copyrighted © 2012</span><br />
<br />
Footnote: γλεῦκος is a hapax in Acts 2:13 and in LXX Job 32:19.</div>
<div>
Footnote: 3 Maccabees uses the Greek word οἴνῳ for wine in 3 Macc 5:2 and οἴνου in 3 Macc 5:10, 45.</div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
Footnote: χλευαζεις is a rare word in the LXX appearing twice in Maccabees and once in Wisdom.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-89934066590143325102011-11-15T20:17:00.001-05:002011-11-15T20:19:39.939-05:00God is not a Penn State fan<span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">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. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">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. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">Copyrighted © 2011<br /> </span>Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-81166208308930414512011-11-01T17:19:00.002-05:002011-11-01T17:22:13.835-05:00Why two different Greek words for Jerusalem III?<span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">In <em>Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles</em> by Hans-Josef Klauck and Brian McNeil, we read our 1st insight into the use of two different Greek words for Jerusalem. “Besides this, Luke employs two forms of the name of the city. He uses the indeclinable word Jerusalem, which is to be considered Biblical Greek and more strongly evokes the Old Testament Jewish horizon; he also employs a Greek version of this, the declinable noun <em>Hierosolyma</em>, which would suggest to a Greek reader the word <em>hieron</em>, i.e., the temple at the heart of the city, and perhaps even the name Solomon, the builder of that Temple.”<br /><br />Luke’s use of the Greek word Ἰερουσαλήμ for Jerusalem 26 times must mean that Luke is the most Jewish of the four gospels since Matthew and Mark only use Ἰερουσαλήμ once while John does not use the Greek word Ἰερουσαλήμ for Jerusalem.<br /><br />More importantly, the declinable noun <em>Hierosolym</em>a, which would suggest to a Greek reader the word hieron, i.e., the temple at the heart of the city, and more likely remind people not about the temple built by Solomon but of the temple built by Herod the Great. Thus when Luke uses the Greek word Ἱεροσόλυμα in verse Luke 23:7 which says “And when he learned that he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time” he is alluding to the temple built by Herod the Great.<br /><br />However Luke uses the Greek word Ἱεροσόλυμα for Jerusalem on three other occasions in his gospel for which an explanation is wanting.<br /><br />This is a work in progress.<br /><br />Copyrighted © 2011 </span>Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-27685517642446025872011-10-31T07:16:00.003-05:002011-10-31T07:24:29.468-05:00Why two different words for Jerusalem II?<span style="font-size:130%;">My earlier article did not answer the question why Luke uses four instances of the Greek word Ἱεροσόλυμα, a form which Rodney Decker says represents the “Hellenized” form of Jerusalem. Likewise, my earlier article did not discuss the occurrence of this form in the Acts of the Apostles. My research has not provided a convincing answer.<br /><br />I write today to suggest that Luke used the Book of Tobit, the Greek II version, as a source for his usage of the two forms of Jerusalem. I have earlier noted that “Long prayers appear in Ezra-Nehemiah, the books of Daniel, Judith, and Tobit, as well as pseudepigraphical works like Jubilees and Pseudo-Philo.” I have also noted that in the Septuagint, the form of righteousness that will provide a ransom for sins is almsgiving, the financial outpouring of compassion on the poor. The same association of a form of righteousness with almsgiving also appears in the Greek translation of Proverbs 15:27a and 20:28. Tobit and Sirach also make this association. The Greek translation of Daniel, Proverbs, Tobit and Sirach explicitly claim that almsgiving has the power to purge sin, to atone for and redeem iniquities. Thus it seems natural to investigate the Book of Tobit a source of the two forms of Jerusalem in one book.<br /><br />In the first chapter of the Book of Tobit, Ἱεροσόλυμα alternates with Ἱερούσαλημ. Tobit seems to use the two words to contrast place where the rulers and priests function with the place where the people live.<br /><br />For instance we read “But I alone went often to Jerusalem Ιεροσόλυμα at the feasts” in Tobit 1:6 while in verse 7 we read “The first tenth part of all increase I gave to the sons of Aaron, who ministered at Jerusalem ῾Ιερουσαλήμ.”<br /><br />In Tobit 14:4, we read “and Jerusalem ῾Ιεροσόλυμα shall be desolate, and the house of God in it shall be burned, and shall be desolate for a time.”<br /><br />I suspect the Book of Tobit may explain one of the four usage of Ἱεροσόλυμα in the Gospel of Luke but I am still thinking.<br /><br />This is a work in progress.<br /><br />Copyrighted © 2011 </span>Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-79883721821649615082011-10-28T18:52:00.003-05:002011-10-28T18:57:15.664-05:00Why two different Greek words for Jerusalem?<span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">Luke uses two different Greek words for Jerusalem. Luke uses the Greek word Ἰερουσαλήμ for Jerusalem 26 times while using the Greek word Ἱεροσόλυμα only 4 times. Matthew also uses two different Greek words for Jerusalem. Matthew uses the Greek word Ἱεροσόλυμα for Jerusalem 9 times while using the Greek word Ἰερουσαλήμ only once in Matt. 23:37. Mark likewise uses the Greek word Ἱεροσόλυμα for Jerusalem 9 times while using the Greek word Ἰερουσαλήμ only once in Mark 11:1. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">The BDAG Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature has three comments relevant to this discussion: “No certain conclusions can be drawn concerning the use of two forms of the name”; “Just 9 times is the form found in Mt (the sole exception 23:37 is fr. a quot.),....”; and Ἰερουσαλήμ “(predom. in the LXX; . . . .)”</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">Ἰερουσαλήμ is the “transliterated Hebrew” form of Jerusalem, according to Rodney Decker, while Ἱεροσόλυμα represents the “Hellenized” form of Jerusalem. Luke, like the LXX, uses the<br />the “transliterated Hebrew” form of Jerusalem. Ἰερουσαλήμ, “transliterated Hebrew” form of Jerusalem, appears 38 times throughout Acts while Ἱεροσόλυμα, the “Hellenized” form of Jerusalem, appears 19 times throughout Acts. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">On one occasion, both Matthew and Mark, in their treatment of the extended passion narrative, use the same Greek word for Jerusalem which Luke predominantly uses.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;"><br />Luke uses the word Jerusalem 30 times in his gospel, 3 times more than either Matthew or Mark uses this word. This is understandable. A third striking theme of the book of Isaiah is the motif of the city. According to Motyer, “Four Isaianic strands are woven together in the use of the city motif in which Jerusalem, Zion, mount/mountain and city are broadly interchangeable terms: divine judgment, preservation and restoration, the security of Zion (14:32; 28:16) and the centrality of the city in the divine thought and plan (footnotes omitted)” [Motyer, 17-18].</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">For Luke, Jerusalem is and remains throughout Luke-Acts the center of the action. Jesus tells his disciples to remain in Jerusalem. The spread of the gospel is directed from Jerusalem by the Holy Spirit. When there is a dispute, the church in Antioch sends a delegation to Jerusalem for a resolution of the problem and decision as to the proper course of action. Throughout Luke-Acts, Jerusalem is the focal point and centrality of location to which Jesus and Paul return. Matthew and Mark have not adopted the motif of the city. Their Jesus instructs his disciples to wait for him in Galilee. The animal sacrificial system having been condemned by them and the city and temple having been destroyed by the Romans, Jerusalem was no longer significant for them. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">This is a work in progress.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">Copyrighted © 2011 <br /> <br /> <br /> </span>Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-50904257700918266352011-10-23T10:02:00.002-05:002011-10-23T10:08:08.293-05:00The Book of Zechariah and the Passion Narratives<span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">It is difficult to do research to write a short piece because that research invariably provide new leads and ideas for yet other short pieces making for was intended to be an easy assignments harder to complete. The research on priority has uncovered considerable material that has not previously been considered in this context. For this reason, my recent article, Matthew misread the Book of Zechariah, was a difficult article to write. I finally decided to prepare a separate article on the contributions and the significance of the Book of Zechariah on the Passion Narratives of the four gospels.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">We begin with the most famous passage from Zechariah 9:9 which Matthew and John quote and to which Mark and Luke allude. The fact that Jesus chose to ride into Jerusalem on a colt was probably understood as a fulfillment of Zechariah even in the absence of a quotation. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">The next quotation appears in Matthew when he tells us that “they weighed out for him thirty pieces of silver” (Matt. 16:15). In Zechariah 11:12, the prophet tells us that when he asked to be paid for the services he had rendered as “shepherd of the flock doomed to slaughter”, his employers “weighed out” as his wages “thirty shekels of silver.” Matthew is the only one to specify the sum of money which Judas was promised by the chief priests for his undertaking to betray Jesus to them. </span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">After a busy week “teaching in the Temple to all the people” Jesus and his disciples celebrate the Passover meal. At the conclusion of the Passover meal, Matthew and Mark both include the following but not Luke:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. Then Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’” Matthew and Mark both quote the Zechariah 13:7 MT. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">The last of the direct quotations appears in John’s passion narrative. Just before sundown on Good Friday, the soldiers broke the legs of the two men who were crucified on either side of Jesus, before removing their bodies but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear. John quotes scripture: “Not a bone of him shall be broken”. Another passage says, “They shall look on him whom they have pierced” (John 19: 33-37). The quotation from Exodus 12:46 designate Jesus out as the true Passover Lamb. The latter comes from Zechariah 12:10, where, after the defeat of the nations who take part in the end-time siege of Jerusalem, Yahweh says:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">“These direct quotations distributed among three of the Evangelists” demonstrate Zechariah 9-14 was one of the “primary sources of testimonies” used by the early followers of Jesus. More importantly for our purposes, they demonstrate some of the additions made to the Lucan passion narrative by Matthew, Mark and John.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">Copyrighted © 2011.<br /> <br /> <br /></span>Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-72223464890738140862011-10-16T10:28:00.001-05:002011-10-16T10:31:33.372-05:00Matthew misread the Book of Zechariah<span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">Just prior to the entry into Jerusalem, Jesus instructs his disciples to find him transportation. In Matthew 21:5, one of the 14 fulfillment citations, we read: All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “Tell the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your King is coming to you, lowly, and sitting on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.’” Matthew was the only gospel writer to include Zechariah’s prophecy. Thus it is clear that the writer intentionally changed what the Lucan Jesus said from “Blessed is the king that cometh in the name of the Lord. Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” to “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” </span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;"><br />In Zech. 9:9, the Prophet Zechariah used Hebrew poetic parallelism (the balancing of thought in successive lines of poetry). The terms male donkey, colt, and foal all designate the same animal—the young donkey upon which the messiah would ride into Jerusalem. The failure to recognize synonymous parallelism creates a translation problem. In talking about two donkeys, Matthew clearly did not understand the Hebrew poetic parallelism of his source.<br /><br />Later, in Matt. 23:35, Matthew made a mistake in his identification of Zechariah as the son of Barachias rather than the son of Jehoiada [2Ch 24:20-22]. The only known Zachariah, son of Barachias, was killed by the Zealots in 67 C.E. [see Jos. Bellum 4:334-344 Zacharias, the son of Baruch (Baruch is equivalent to Barachias)]. The Gospel of the Hebrews reads 'son of Jehoiada.' After this misidentification, Matthew has Jesus discussing the destruction of the Temple that occurred in 70 C.E. These two mistakes suggest the person who wrote these verses was not Matthew, the disciple of Jesus and that this person wrote some time after 67 C.E.<br /><br />This proposal, that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was written some time after 67 C.E., recognizes the possibility that Matthew with its unique fulfillment citations responded to the needs of its community estranged by the introduction of the Birkath ha-Minim around 85 C.E. The only significant parallel to Matthew’s explicit formula citations in Jewish and Christian literature of this time period occurs on 6 occasions in the Gospel of John.<br /><br />Copyrighted © 2011<br /> <br /> <br /><br /></span>Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-34344068961181440932011-10-03T21:06:00.003-05:002011-10-04T19:59:46.674-05:00Undesigned coincidences inspired by the Holy Spirit<span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">An undesigned coincidence occurs when one account of an event leaves out a bit of information that does not affect the overall picture, but a different account indirectly supplies the missing detail, usually answering some natural question raised by the first.<br /><br />Blunt supplied this definition in his book, <em>Undesigned Coincidence</em>, and provided examples which he argued demonstrated the veracity of the various books of the Bible. According to Blunt, this verse in Luke 9:36 “And they kept silence and told no one in those days anything of what they had seen” prompts the question “Why did they keep silent?” Blunt further suggests that Mark in 9:9 answered the question “Jesus told them to tell no one.”<br /><br />Do Blunt’s examples of undesigned coincidence provide a working list of one way indicators? It is certainly something worth investigating further.<br /><br />I understand the purpose of <em>Undesigned Coincidence</em> to be establishing the veracity of the Bible; I do not understand it to providing one way indicators. Nonetheless, Blunt’s undesigned coincidences may be valuable leads for my one way indicator research.<br /><br />The definition provided by Blunt seems to suggest that one writer intentionally sought to answer a question prompted by an earlier writer. Yet in reading <em>Undesigned Coincidence</em>, Blunt acknowledged that the second writer may not have known he was answering a question. Hence my title: Undesigned coincidences inspired by the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />Certainly Josephus did not intend to answer questions suggested by Matthew in 2:22 or Luke in 3:14 or 3:2. But there is no question that Josephus is in fact responding to the effectiveness of the NT as a tool in the recruiting of new members of the Way from the ranks and files of Judaism. However the evidence of dependence suggested by Blunt needs to be supplemented by internal evidence from Josephus.<br /><br />In four examples supplied by Blunt, Mark and Luke seem to be responding to Matthew yet in one example Matthew is responding to Mark and in two other examples Matthew and Luke seem to be responding to John. In three examples Luke (2) and Matthew (1) seem to be responding to John. These comments indicate that Blunt’s examples need to be supplemented by other evidence.<br />Blunt’s examples, although inconclusive as to one way indicators may be evidence that one or more gospels were rewritten or revised after initially circulating within the communities of the followers of Jesus. It is such possibilities that make the Synoptic Problem appear to be intractable.<br /><br />Copyrighted © 2011 </span>Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-53129069295237898202011-09-23T20:22:00.000-05:002011-09-23T20:25:09.217-05:00Fatigue in keeping time<span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:130%;">Fatigue is one of the clues utilized by biblical scholars to determine whether or not one gospel is dependent upon another. Mark Goodacre explains that “Editorial fatigue is a phenomenon that will inevitably occur when a writer is heavily dependent on another's work. In telling the same story as his predecessor, a writer makes changes in the early stages which he is unable to sustain throughout.” Goodacre examined fatigue at the pericope level. However he did not consider fatigue in the larger context.<br /><br />It is undisputed that the synoptic gospels presents the passion account using Jewish time while the Gospel of John presents the passion account using Roman time. In John 19:14-15, Jesus was before Pilate at about the sixth hour; but in Matthew 27:45-46; Mark 15:33-34 and Luke 23:42-46, Jesus was on the cross at the sixth hour. Some scholars assert that the conflict is easily resolved by recognizing John is using Roman time. F.F. Bruce disagrees.<br /><br />The interesting question is whether the Synoptics consistently presented the gospel narrative using Jewish time. If one or more of the synoptic gospels presented other portion of the gospel narrative using Roman time, would this be an example of editorial fatigue?<br /><br />The Jewish night was divided into three watches: (Exodus 14:24; Judges 7:19; 1 Samuel 11:11). Under the Roman system, the period from sunrise to sunset had four watches in twelve hours, the sixth hour being at midday. This is the Roman time divisions:<br />First watch - Sunset To 9 P. M.<br />Second Watch - 9 P. M. To Midnight<br />Third Watch - Midnight To 3 A. M.<br />Fourth Watch - 3 A. M. To Sunrise.<br /><br />In the “walking on the sea” pericope, Matthew [14:25] and Mark [6:48] both describe the event as occurring during the fourth watch. This story does not appear in Luke but in Lk. 12:38 the Lucan Jesus says: “If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them so, blessed are those servants!” The Gospel of Luke does not have any examples of the use of Roman time.<br /><br />Are Matthew and Mark guilty of editorial fatigue? Were they unable to sustain the use of Roman time throughout their gospel? It is rather easy to demonstrate that both Matthew and Mark have copied the Lucan passion account which we will do so in another article. In doing so Matthew and Mark slipped and switched from Roman time to Jewish time without realizing it.<br /><br />This is a work in progress.<br /><br />Copyrighted © 2011<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span>Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9878151.post-61199462163125018292011-09-17T07:36:00.002-05:002011-09-17T11:30:56.280-05:00Re-dating the NT: Burned their city<span style="font-family:courier new;">John A.T. Robinson begins Chapter 2 of his masterpiece in these words: “ONE of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned as a past fact.” It is this statement, established by a detailed analysis, that has caused many scholars to re-visit the dating of the New Testament. However, Robinson did not discuss the Parable of the Wedding Banquet.<br /><br />Matthew 22:7 reads: The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and ἐνέπρησεν their city. This Greek word for “burned” appears only in Matthew in the Parable of the Wedding Banquet and nowhere else in the New Testament. None of the New Testament accounts note the separate fates of the city and the Temple. In 70 CE, the Roman general Titus destroyed the city of Jerusalem and his legion burned the Temple.<br /><br />Does Matthew reveal his knowledge of the destruction with his Parable of the Wedding Banquet?<br /><br />Matthew also uses the word κατακαύσει in the story of John Baptist when he informed his audience that “the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” Luke likewise uses this Greek word for burn and includes this phrase. Matthew uses κατακαύσει in his telling of the Parable of the Weeds and in its interpretation which are unique to his gospel. Matthew has clearly indicated that the weeds are the evildoers who are to be collected at the end and bind into bundles to be thrown into the fire. Consequently, we should understand the Parable of the Wedding Feast in the same way as the Parable of the Weeds and recognize that Matthew believed that the burning of the Temple represented God’s judgment against the Temple and the temple establishment for its iniquity and wickedness thus revealing his knowledge of the destruction of the city of the city and the Temple.<br /><br />The inference that Matthew knew the fate of the Temple is weak and therefore does not qualify as a valid one way indicator. The inference is weak because Matthew could have been alluding to Jeremiah 52:13 wherein Jeremiah tells us that the king of Babylon came and “set on fire the house of the Lord.” The first temple and the city were destroyed by fire in 586 B.C.E. Since the Septuagint uses the Greek word ἐνέπρησεν in Jeremiah 52:13 and 11 other books of the LXX, it is not a rare word allusion since ἐνέπρησεν is a common word in the Septuagint but is a hapax in Matthew.<br /><br />It is examples such as this that confirms the radical proposal of John A.T. Robinson that all of the books of the New Testament should be dated prior to the destruction of the City and Temple in 70 C.E.<br /><br />Copyrighted © 2011 </span>Richard H. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245129849947063288noreply@blogger.com3