[edited] Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:23:21 -0500 From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com Subject: Re: Jesus in Acts Re: the composition history of Acts. ---------------------------- Loisy is sure that the original writings to Theophilus were merely the basis for the canonical Luke. An editor took these writings to Theophilus and expanded them very considerably at a late stage. "In [Lk] we find the first book to Theophilus not only augmented by the birth-legends [that originally were not there -- Yuri] but substantially remodelled and completed, and the same operations have been carried out on the second book in the Acts of the Apostles. The question of dates is one question for the two writings both in their original and their canonical forms. Enough has been said to entitle us to affirm that the author of the original books to Theophilus wrote in the early years of the second century, at a time when the Christian community in Rome had not entirely rallied to the observance of the Sunday Easter. The subsequent edition presupposes the Sunday observance as completely adopted." (Loisy, ORIGINS, p. 195) On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Mark Goodacre wrote to Yuri: > I like the idea > that Luke is somehow a prequel to Acts, rather as David Lynch's "Fire > Walk With Me", the prequel to the "Twin Peaks" series, was produced > after that series. > > Thus Luke writes up his Centurion story (7.1-10) with overtones of > the Cornelius story that he has already written in Acts 10. According to Loisy, the editorial intention of the _editor_ (not of the writer to Theophilus) here is to put Peter above Paul as the first apostle to the Gentiles. Baptism of Cornelius is significant in order "to make it appear that ... Peter was the first to accept a pagan convert without compelling him to be circumcised (10:44-48). The same motive inspires the apology for his conduct which Peter goes on to offer to "those who were of the circumcision" in Jerusalem (11:1-18). All this our editor places before coming to the foundation of the Church in Antioch, by way of putting Peter above Paul and of reserving to Peter the initiative as apostle to the Gentiles." (p. 204) > And the Great Omission (Mark 6.45 - 8.26) is due to the fact that he > has already covered that material in Acts in its proper place. Or perhaps it is due to the possibility that "Luke" didn't find these passages in the Ur-Markus which was his _real_ source? Regards, Yuri.Click here to go one level up in the directory.