Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | was luke a christian? | Philem 1:24 | DocTrinsograce | 148679 | ||
Hi, Michael! You wrote, "Luke and Acts may have been written by him as the defense of Paul in Rome." I believe this is a theory proposed in the last couple of years in a book by John Mauck (neither Bible scholar nor historian). It is important to recognize that Mauk's speculation is simply that. There is an ancient tradition that Theophilus (Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1) was a friend of Luke's from Antioch. In the absence of evidence (Scriptural or otherwise), the common understanding of the believers of old is probably much more reliable. Modernity has alway seen new ideas as superior to old ideas. Although the arguments behind that assumption are eristic at best, they do seem to sell more books! :-) In Him, Doc PS Michael, you've been on the forum a long time. Why not tell us about yourself in your profile? |
||||||
2 | was luke a christian? | Philem 1:24 | Michael Draves | 148747 | ||
You are right that John Mauck proposed the theory that Luke wrote Luke and Acts to defend Paul. I loaned out my copy to a lawyer friend and couldn't remember the proper attribution. I think that people who have something in common with an author may have some valid insights that a Bible scholar or historian might miss. Of course it could just be a lawyer seeing a legal defense because he was looking for one. | ||||||
3 | was luke a christian? | Philem 1:24 | DocTrinsograce | 148762 | ||
Hi, brother Michael! I agree that there are other disciplines from which insight can be gained. The ideas of those who study law have always been of interest to me. We can certainly see the influence of the Bible on the principles behind the American legal system. (Of course, the application of those principles is another matter!) Indeed, the Bible often speaks in terms that are clearly rooted in jurisprudence. On the other hand, we all become offended at Higher Criticism for suggesting that there were really two or more prophets named Isaiah, or, worse still, questioning the doctrine of inerrancy. But then, those of us who hold to a higher view of Scripture sometimes try to play the same games laboring under some kind of odd sense of mistaken impunity. Now, one might validly ask why I am so sensitive in this area. Okay... I'll make a confession if everyone promises not to laugh at me! I recently laid out a very solid, articulate, and rational -- although possibly novel -- set of arguments for why Hebrews must have been written by Gamaliel of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish Rabbinical Master who mentored Saul) rather than by Paul himself. This, despite that there is no evidence that Gamaliel ever became a Christian, and that orthodoxy has always held that Paul was the author of Hebrews. Now, if you can believe it, I had the hubris to set this before two professional, published, and well lettered New Testament historians. I'll leave the conclusion of this anecdote to your imagination. Suffice it to say that I can't be too critical of John Mauck without painting myself with the same brush. Even if John Mauck made a few bucks off his speculation, I'm persuaded that I earned something of greater value! (Proverbs 3:13-15) (The humility lesson was valuable too!) In Him, Doc PS Okay, if you want to laugh a little bit... I can take it! :-) |
||||||